xml-dev - Re: what's wrong with CC/PP

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 09:51 PM 3/6/00 -0500, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
>> The "Executive Summary of Requirements" notes "Flexibility, extensibility,
>> and distribution," but appears to have entirely forgotten simplicity.
>
>I personally don't find RDF at all complex.

If it was just RDF, I wouldn't be so concerned.  However, in addition to
the many people who do find RDF complex (and unnecessarily so at that),
there's the tiny matter of RDF Schemas floating in limbo.

Have you read the CC/PP draft?  In my very brief summary, I left out most
of the complexity described by the draft itself.

>The specification is clear and well written, and there isn't all that
>much syntax needed.  I didn't find the schema document particularly
>complex either, although you have to be willing to read specs.
>There did seem to be an error --an RDF example uses s.Creator, where
>s is the rdf schema spec. Should be dc.Creator I think.

By 'the specification' I assume you're talking about the RDF Schemas spec -
CC/PP doesn't (yet) have any such errors.

>Luckily there are quite a few people using RDF now, so there is
>implementation experience as well as large amounts of actual data.

There are quite a few people using RDF, but mileage seems to vary
tremendously.  I'm questioning CC/PP on grounds that it uses too many
technologies that aren't quite cooked yet, perhaps doing too much to
perform its task, rather than on the grounds of its using RDF.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************