• To: <donpark@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:27:07 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <000001c28f82$24b753f0$6401a8c0@rainbow>

>You are confusing Common Sense with Political Correctness.  RDF is
>butt-ugly, confusing, and useless in its current form.

RDF/XML may be butt-ugly and confusing, but IMHO the model is quite the
opposite.

 After years of
>TimBL and W3C pitching RDF hard, I have yet to see a single successful
>application of RDF that couldn't be done without RDF.

I have yet to see an XML application that couldn't be done without XML, so
that argument isn't particularly strong. The point is that in the same way a
lot of applications are considerably easier to implement using XML, quite a
few applications are considerably easier with RDF, and such practical
applications are now popping up all over the place.

>Its not the fire log that is wet, it's the damn match.

It's lit.

Cheers,
Danny.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RDF as RDF, RDF as XML, RDF as metadata,RDF as object serialization ....
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
• Next by Date: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Previous by thread: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Next by thread: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread