Lists Home |
Date Index |
11/4/2002 1:58:14 PM, Eric van der Vlist <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In other words, the XML syntax for RDF may be the target of our
>criticism but this article which shows clearly its limitations deserves
>our respect :-) ...
I agree that the article deserves respect, although it left me with
even less interest in trying to work with the RDF XML serialization!
One thing I didn't find in the article was a compelling reason to
care ... "As RDF interest and application development grows, there's
an increasing payoff in keeping RDF concerns in mind ". Uhh, not
in the world I live in! Sorry, I just don't see much interest
in RDF. The article goes on to cite Tim Bray's 1998 What is RDF
article (only the mechanical details have been updated in the 2001
version cited). The fact that they had to point to a nearly
5 year old article speaks volumes about RDF's interest in the
real world, one might think. Not to mention the unpleasant
issue of the pushback that RSS 1.0's RDF overhead as gotten in
the RSS community!
So, I would really like to understand what benefit one might
really get from using an RDF-friendly XML syntax. Eric van der
Vlist (perhaps offlist) once mentioned that XML.fr uses the RDFness
of RSS 1.0 to categorize articles via an RDF taxonomy/ontology.
I was intrigued by Leigh Dodds' article more than a year ago
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/07/25/rdfcalendar.html on the
RDF Calendaring Task Force, but a recent check of that list appeared
to me as though it had petered out.
I'm not hostile to RDF (for localized domains in which effective
taxonomies exist, anyway, don't get me started about the "Semantic Web"),
just skeptical that it's worth a significant investment of my time.
Does anyone want to try to persuade us skeptics that RDF's time