[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
bry@itnisk.com wrote:
> [snipped] I do not think that one can easily describe the digraphical
> nature of RDF, even with a graph at hand. I do believe that parts of
> RDF are susceptible to such easy explanation, but the whole has not
> proven to be so,
>
>
> Obviously this last bit sounds somewhat religious, as though I have
> had a conversion, and I suppose I have.
I think that actual graphical examples go a long way towards helping
someone (or at least _me_ :-) ) understand. When I run some rdf through
the rdf validator on the W3C's site, I alway turn on the graphical
display option.
> I believe this is why it has basically failed, and why it will
> continue to fail
There seems to be a tension between the experts (especially logicians
and ontologists) who have gotten used to it (but they tend tu use the N3
compact notation), and think that rdf will be all generated by tools so
who cares about the syntax, and people would would like to casually
author it, like you and me. I thnk that causal and easy authoring will
be important for helping get widespread adoption (if that ever happens).
Cheers.
Tom P
--
Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide the the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
|
