Lists Home |
Date Index |
> 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.
Shall I try that again, but this time in something other than my usual
"I think, though, that our time would be most productively spent coming up
with approaches that allow people to work with RDF without having to use
RDF/XML if they dislike it so; to use alternative serialization formats or
alternative technology implementations, but still be compatible with the
folks that would prefer to continue using the formalized RDF/XML
Gah! Can't take me anywhere without my editor.