• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: Why RDF is hard
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:39:03 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E18Ddmt-0007Rb-00@m...>

uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>I don't know what gives you this mistaken impression.    Many of us
>here have said "if you don't like RDF, that's cool.  use what tickles
>you".  So who is it that is not doing the recognizing.

The W3C (via QNames, URIs uber alles, and now RDDL/RDF) and various
people (Liam Quin, for instance) who seem to suggest on a regular basis
that adding RDF to the core of XML would improve it.

I have no qualms at all about people using RDF for projects.  I have
serious qualms about the amount of damage that the URI cult has already
inflicted on XML and the potential amount of damage that can still be
inflicted.  Unfortunately, RDF plays directly into that.


-------------
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

• Follow-Ups:
  • The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: Why RDF is hard
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Next by Date: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• Previous by thread: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Next by thread: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread