[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
>I don't think the problem is as simple as "what RDF does is hard."
>
>For me, the problem with RDF is the demands it places on me for keeping
>track of the structures described. Invariably, when I look at
>information stored in RDF (or a Topic Map) in a graphical form, the
>connections make sense, the overall structure or lack thereof is very
>clear. When I look at the same information in its raw RDF document
>form, I start to mutter about people who are too damn smart creating
>models which are suitable only for computers and people who can think
>like computers.
>I find markup very human - even annoyingly human. I just came back from
>a meeting where I showed off some SVG maps but really wowed them with
>the raw XML used to store the data. I never mentioned or explained XML,
>but I didn't have to - they were looking at the marked-up data and
>comparing it to the SVG and performing their own transformations. Then
>they asked if they could add X, Y, and Z or put it into Excel/SPSS/etc.
>and were happy that the answer was yes.
>
>(Given that I hadn't finished the demo, this was very gratifying, but to
>continue...)
>
>Embedded markup, whatever its sins may be, is very good at making things
>explicit. I can usually look at a well-designed document and keep track
>of even complicated hierarchical relationships and even the occasional
>ID/IDREF connection. I can't do that with most RDF - when I have to
>think about it in terms that go beyond simple markup the overhead of
>keeping track of the pieces makes the effort outweigh the benefits.
>
>I don't think the RDF community has ever really understood that what
>they do is genuinely difficult for most people. The RDF community seems
>very self-selecting to me - those who can cope with RDF like it, and the
>rest of us keep our distance. I'm not sure it's ever been clear to
>people who find RDF intuitive why so many people bounce off of it
>completely, and I'm not convinced that it's possible to explain that to
>someone who genuinely likes RDF.
>
>I guess we'll see if this message generates the usual "but you're wrong
>about RDF it's so simple and clear" messages that previous efforts to
>state the same thesis have garnered.
Simon, RDF wasn't easy for me. I don't think it's easy for anyone.
And there have been more times then I can tell you getting irritated
at the tangents among the discussions related to RDF about the more
esoteric elements of same. However, I could understand a pay-back to,
and the power of, something such as RDF. As soon as I started writing
about XML (first published in January, 1998 on it), I knew that one
thing XML would eventually need is a meta-model or all we would ever
have is isolated little XML vocabularies all over the place, and
absolutely no inter-operation between them because there is no
general agreement on the elements, and how they relate to each other.
Is RDF clear and easy? Not a chance. But does this make its value
less? Might as well take away the value of Perl (which some people
find too cryptic), or C++ (which some people find too difficult), or
any other technology that can have a steep learning curve.
If RDF was easy, we wouldn't need the six documents to describe it. I
wouldn't need to write the book on it. We wouldn't need examples, or
test cases, or tools. But none of this makes the value of RDF less;
it just makes the challenge of using it effectively greater.
Shelley
>-------------
>Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
>http://simonstl.com may be my URI
>http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
>urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
