[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I'd go further. I think the current RDF/XML syntax is so B.A.D. (broken
> as designed) that it has seriously got in the way of people being
> open-minded about RDF. I'm baffled why the RDF working group has been
> forbidden to work on replacing that syntax. -Tim
>
>
I came on very strong in my last response and for that I apologize. We can
debate these issues without getting heated.
I think, though, that our time would be most productively spent on perhaps
coming up with approaches that allow people to work with RDF without having
ot use RDF/XML if they dislike it so, to user alternative serialization
formats ro alternative technology implementations and still be compatible
with the folks that would prefer using the formalized RDF/XML serialization
technique. For instance, if your simplified RDF/XML meets all of the needs
of the model, then lets create a transform for it (as exists with Ntriples
and RDF/XML) and provide this for people's use. That is an effective
alternative, wouldn't you say?
Let's accept that RDF/XML will release, as is, and work from there.
Shelley
|
