[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That seems harsh, lads. The article only claims to show how
one can use the two technologies together should one want to
do so. If metadata is as important as some seem to suggest,
then it doesn't appear to me that they are preventing people
from using their technologies. They are exposing some weaknesses
and deliberately, IMO. For example, the loosy goosy way that
IDs were applied prior to DTDs in web markup is a known problem.
So RDF it or give it the proper type in a DTD. Since the topic
is RDF-friendly, the technique is fine but again, it demonstrates
that pure XML-well-formed-only systems have this hole among others.
The container striping is weird. On the other hand, RDF is not
XML and this is one of those impedance mismatches. It's good
to see it exposed. The about attributes are just RDF type
system declaration semantics being hoisted over to XML that
doesn't have them. It doesn't leave me cold, but I am not a
fan of URI usage given that the W3C has never been able to
close that work item, but rather, keeps layering more goo
onto the top of the cake.
As to use of other ontologies, this looks like good advice
but is politically problematic. It depends on the source
of the ontology. It is a fact of life that not every agency
wishes to reuse the definitions of another agency. Anyone
who thinks the advent of the web put away the politics of
NIH isn't thinking clearly. Learning from the work of others
is usually acceptable. Enabling them to rule the namespaces
of another agency's documents seldom is. Namespaces, even
where technically workable, will always present a political
obstacle.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
Articles like this go a long way towards convincing me that the RDF folks are very determined to prevent people from actually using their technology or the Semantic Web. ;)
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
If people thought that XLink was an intrusive technology, I'm not sure
what they'll make of the RDF-friendly XML described at:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html
|
