Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 11:56 AM 10/22/2004, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>Perhaps "representing relationships" would be the lower-hanging fruit, but
>we don't need a new standard to say that resource X has relationship Y to
>resource Z; we've got RDF for that.
I couldn't disagree more.
The example of the Web demonstrates that usage will come from
simplicity. If I have a specification that says, "Add an attribute of
href='foo' to anything and it becomes a link," people will use it.
You're proposing we say, "Look, you want links? Well, first write
yourself a DTD. Then a stylesheet. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to write
an RDF vocabularly to represent the data relationships, too. Hope you like
Somehow, I just don't think people will be jumping on that bandwagon.
A linking specification needs to be simpler. But think about it:
if the styling people actually add linking mechanisms into their
specifications, it'd work with RDF -and- a simpler linking
specification...and everything else, too.
That's a win/win scenario, as far as I can tell.