Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I'd go further. I think the current RDF/XML syntax is so B.A.D. (broken > as designed) that it has seriously got in the way of people being > open-minded about RDF. I'm baffled why the RDF working group has been > forbidden to work on replacing that syntax. -Tim > > I came on very strong in my last response and for that I apologize. We can debate these issues without getting heated. I think, though, that our time would be most productively spent on perhaps coming up with approaches that allow people to work with RDF without having ot use RDF/XML if they dislike it so, to user alternative serialization formats ro alternative technology implementations and still be compatible with the folks that would prefer using the formalized RDF/XML serialization technique. For instance, if your simplified RDF/XML meets all of the needs of the model, then lets create a transform for it (as exists with Ntriples and RDF/XML) and provide this for people's use. That is an effective alternative, wouldn't you say? Let's accept that RDF/XML will release, as is, and work from there. Shelley
|
