[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>As a part of the world's information in electronic form, the amount
>of RDF in the world is trivial - it's not even dust. The problem is
>that if RDF becomes widely adopted as an interchange, as I believe
>it will be, in it's current form it will solve very little. Indeed
>it may be just get it the way of what it was meant to do. Certainly
>it will not meet the aims it was designed for as designed today.
Current form as RDF/XML? Or current form as in the entire model?
>
>>HTML was also "bad". But when XML came along we didn't throw out HTML
>>immediately. No, we came up with what is a compromise -- XHTML. It's a start
>>towards moving people in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but few
>>things in life are perfect.
>
RDF is utterly unlike HTML. Comparing HTML and RDF is like comparing
ASCII to English.
>
>>The RDF Working Group was given a charter not to rewrite RDF/XML but to
>>answer issues and provide as much cleanup and clarification as they could
>>but to still remain within that support for previous implementations. It's
>>sad that one can't just throw things out and start over again, but that's
>>the way of the real world.
>
>Wrong on two counts. First, the proper job of technologies as
>ambitious as RDF is to change the world. Second, RDF *was* thrown
>out and started over from scratch the moment the W3 decided a model
>theory was in order.
Really. Change the world, eh? Interesting interpretation of RDF.
>
>>But I do tire of people saying "bad", without specifics and solutions.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. Tim Bray has provided a simplified syntax (not
>the first, but perhaps the first to get the needed attention). As
>for specifics - the specifics are in four years worth of mail
>archives on half a dozen lists, inclusding this one, if you care to
>read it all.
Tim talked about his alternative RDF/XML over at my weblog. I think
I'll let him respond in this mailing list about relying on that
particular alternative, as is proper.
Shelley
|
