W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:43:25 +0100
Message-Id: <F5874A7C-5767-47E9-B1BF-BE2387FAEA5D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I understand that the RDF community believes

No, please, that should *not* be your takeaway. I think I'm a card  
carrying RDF community member and I certainly don't believe what  
follows. I think it's a bit controversial, actually. (One of the  
things that drives me, personally, nuts is the line that RDF is  
designed for "Follow you nose" discovery, etc. I don't think it's  
particularly so designed and I don't think "follow your nose" is a  
great thing, by and large.)

I may be a tad heterodox, but I'm still here :)

> that it is better for content
> to define how its vocabularies work (whatever that means) rather than
> having the tools just natively support the vocabularies, but it  
> seems much
> better to me to just have the tools natively support the vocabularies.

If you look back in the GRDDL archives, you'll see me argue along  
these lines.

> That way, you upgrade the tool and everything works better, instead of
> having to upgrade the tool and the vocabulary definitions and hope  
> that
> everyone has linked everything together.

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 18:44:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:03 UTC