Lists Home |
Date Index |
Paul T wrote:
> From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> The explanations are in my previous letters on this subject.
> > I don't see how those explanations have much to do with RDDL.
Even after reading your post I still agree with Simon. Lots of your
unsupported opinions (I suppose one does what one is good at).
> This thread got started with Len's *perfect*
> summary letter, where he listed
> "fetching knowledge from the Web" as an option.
> He said "RDF". I said : "RDDL, but not the current one".
> I had no desire to start discussing this 'current RDDL'
> stuff in detail. I was responding to Len's letter and I (still)
> believe that buzzword RDDL *is* closer to that 'fetcher',
> than the buzzword RDF. Those, who want to understand
> details, should read the thread from the beginning (that was
> Len's letter with this subject).
I've read this message from beginning to end, but it just contains vague
whining without any substence. If you think "RDDL but not the current RDDL"
is useful for some purpose, what specifically do you mean. I don't want to
read rambling, rather a specific proposal. Certainly you must have something
in mind. Try to be constructive rather than destructive. Please.