Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Greg FitzPatrick wrote: > Despite who or what is stupid, I guess I am not as brave as the > kid who called the king naked, in saying that the syntax and model > specifications are not the documents they should be Too late! You just did. Bravo!:) > if we are going to win converts to the RDF cause. RDF concepts aren't bad at all... > That this group of engineers made a sincere effort to implement > RDF and failed, is saddening The basic problem with RDF (actually the specs) is the XML part. This was always a how-do-we-get-there-from-here problem. RDF has a pretty detailed data model. It might have sufficed - as I believe at one point it did - to consider XML as just one possible serialization syntax. Most of the complications come from trying to shoehorn everything into XML, with added "constraints" like "it's gotta work in Netploder" - "work", of course, meaning "gets ignored". This led to suboptimal decisions such as redeploying the HTML-inspired idea of sticking a URL (a resource reference) into an attribute. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be cleaned up. People are likely to "get" RDF and then curse the syntax for making that process so difficult. Arjun *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
|
