• From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
• To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@a...>,"Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:54:21 -0500

I won't comment on the success or failure of RDF, but it seems to me
that it's highly abstract, not necessarily highly generic.  

What is a generic vocabulary?  One that serves too many masters?  Poorly
focused?  Become confused in the minds of consumers as referring to a
whole class of (vocabularies | schemas) rather than just the one?

Bruce B Cox
Manager, Standards Development Division
OCIO/SDMG
571-272-9004

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Manola [mailto:fmanola@a...] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Peter Hunsberger
Cc: James Fuller; xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?


On Jan 30, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:04 AM, James Fuller
> <james.fuller.2007@g...> wrote:
>
>>
>> point 2. If an XML vocabulary is too generic it will fail
>>
>
> So, what's the consensus; is RDF a failure?

Nope.  Just generic enough.

>
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>