[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:21:53 +0100, Jan Algermissen
> <jalgermissen@t...> wrote:
> 
>>Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know if it's the semantics or what, but for some reason RDF
>>>just comes across as too geeky for the business side of the house.
>>>Maybe it's just that they've been hearing OO for 10 years and believe
>>>that "Objects" are supposed to be something good so they instantly
>>>adopt them. (Resource? What's a resource?).
>>
>>...an object...with a uniform interface[1].
>>
>>HTH,
> 
> Umm, sorry, no: I guess you missed the comment about "RDF appearing to
> be too geeky"?  (Uniform interface? What's a uniform interface? And it
> only get's worse from there...)

I haven't found explaining Resources to be a problem in practice. If 
anything, explaining Objects is harder.

cheers
Bill

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member