• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:32:36 -0400
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20031001102123.01db0bf8@n...>

jonathan.robie@d... (Jonathan Robie) writes:
>>I read it as somewhat poor; illegal XML examples, uses the wrong RDF
>>namespace URI, fails to cite the key references of the time on RDF
>>query or RDF/XML (at that date 2001/2002) and said so when it was
>>presented. Somewhat slipshod work showing insufficient care with
>>basic XML or RDF.
>
>Yes, I agree that it lacks some of the secondary virtues that a good
>editor could have caught.
>
>But isn't that like criticizing Bach for his penmanship?

I think it would be more like criticizing him for his inability to play
on-key.

(So far as I know, that wasn't a problem for Bach, though there are
interesting discussions about how notes have drifted over time.)

• References:
  • Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XForms engine/tools suggestions
• Next by Date: Re: Beyond Ontologies
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• Next by thread: RE: Looking for Schema for Requirements and Specifications Manual(s)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread