Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi,
we seem to be in a kind of deadlock here:
we all agree that the RDF syntax is scary and the
RDF datamodel does not reflect the current XML
serialization.
They were concrete proposals to fix this - but
these are of course "non-standard", so nobody uses
them.
On the other side the W3C seems to wait for practice
reports from the new proposals to have input for
a new working group.
So what to do?
Stefan
At 06:27 AM 2/25/00 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> writes:
>
> > RDF: why?
>
>To exchange serialized objects independent of protocols or programming
>language (forget about the semantic web hooey). RDF is suboptimal for
>this, but it gets a lot of things right (i.e. extensibility) and there
>doesn't seem to be another reasonable candidate out there yet. On the
>other hand, the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so
>it's hard to know what to do.
>
>There's a lot of money in this: e-commerce requires much richer data
>nowadays, and retailers want that data to flow from wholesalers and
>wholesalers want that data to flow from producers. If you take a look
>at data-exchange right now (tab-delimited dumps, product-specific
>tables, etc.) it's a bit of a bad joke. Writing specific XML formats
>for each exchange task is a small improvement, but you miss out on the
>network effect of being able to share 90% of the processing software,
>because the XML data model is too low-level.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David
>
>--
>David Megginson david@m...
> http://www.megginson.com/
***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************
|
