[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- To: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:42:44 -0600
Jeff Sussna wrote:
>
> ... inventions are only useful to
> the extent to which they are used. If an invention is brilliant but
> incomprehensible, no one will use it.
Inventions are used to the extent they are needed once you get above
the new, different, opportunistic threshholds. If RDF orSomethingLikeIt
meets a clearly understood requirement, it will get used. XML is a good
example
of a technology disregarded until implementors discovered they needed it
Eg, SGML worked well. HTML worked great. HTML quit being adaptible.
Selling a project to subset SGML was easy after that. Now it is a
huge success story instead of a CALS cause celebre.
> I worry sometimes that RDF will fall
> prey to a similar history as Lisp and Smalltalk.
There is a pretty good chance that will be the case. Meanwhile,
simplified versions of the ideas it attempts to standardize can
thrive, a la HTML.
If as stated, it is as easy as a URI used as a primary key in
a relational database, we are already doing that and publishing
relational schemas. Works great. So why, again, do I need RDF?
What will it do today? Can I buy a product faster that does it
better?
len
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
