[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike has already expressed some of the thoughts that led to my original
comment. Looking at the article, it seems the intention is to state that
making an application RDF-friendly involves overly restricting ones
markup and supplication to RDF. If I had written such an article, I'd
probably have leaned more towards showing people how to design their XML
documents so it is easy to transform them to RDF using XSLT or some
similar mechanism.
At least that's what I learned from the backlash against RSS 1.0.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Never make anything simple and efficient when a way can be found to make
it complex and wonderful.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> 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
>
>
|
