Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Gregorio [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 1:05 PM
> To: Shelley Powers
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
> Shelley Powers wrote:
> >No seriously, my biggest concern recently is that there seems to be an
> >assumption that those who are interested in RDF are seeking to replace
> >straight XML uses with RDF/XML.
> You know what they say about making assumptions...
> But when you see:
> 1. RSS 1.0 - Take an existing widely deployed format and refactor it to
> be RDF/XML.
> 2. This article: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html
> 3. The attempted refactoring of RDDL to be RDF.
> It certainly does 'look' like those who are interested in RDF are
> seeking to replace
> straight XML uses with RDF/XML.
No, not really.
Remember that RSS started out as an RDF implementation -- RDF Site Summary.
Whatever you may think of it, this is a fact. A verifiable fact. One then
has to say that RSS 1.0 is nothing more than a return to the RDF roots of
the original RSS architects. It's not an attempt to eliminate other types of
RSS in the world. In fact, one could say that the architects of the other
versions of RSS are the only ones I've seen attempting to suppress or
eliminate the work on the part of the RSS 1.0 team. You know, doing things
like trying to trademark "RSS" when the term originated at Netscape, that
sort of thing. Couldn't one say this?
As for the article: I think the authors of the article are attempting to
show that RDF/XML doesn't have to be scary, intimidating, and off putting.
And they were trying to show that you might be able to bring in the extra
capabilities and functionality of RDF without having to muck around with the
underlying XML too much. At least, that's what I read. Do I agree with it?
Yes and no. RDF/XML is easy as dirt for me, so it's natural that I'll use it
and get the extra crunchy goodness, to steal a phrase from my friend Simon
(I love that phrase). However, I don't think a person should flavor their
XML with the RDF annotations without knowing what they are doing. That's
primarily because I believe a group should make a determination to use
RDF/XML from the beginning, and use it effectively and specifically rather
than try and 'merge' a psuedo-RDF look on to XML.
(It was a good article, though. And I think it is a good read, and
interesting take on the XML and RDF/XML discussion.)
I'm really don't know what the RDDL thing was all about. If you can
represent RDDL comfortably in RDF/XML, with only a small or minimum amount
of RDF influence, then you buy extra functionality from RDF/XML and, again,
that's a cruncy goodness. All those tools. All those APIs. However, if you
all think it makes RDDL horrid and awful and will ruin everything, then
geez, don't do it. Use XLink or whatever. You won't break my heart any if
In fact, I want to solemnly state right now that in is belief there is no
global conspiracy to take over XML and force people to use RDF/XML in its
place. So help me Tim Berners-Lee.
(I'm getting frivilous, aren't I? Does this mean it's time for a limerick?
There once was a thing called XML
that rang our collective markup bell
till one day it was hurt
besmirched with dirt
from namespaces out of RDF hell
Oh my, but that was awful.)