W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Now it's RDF vs Microformats

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:19:33 -0000
To: "'Lee Feigenbaum'" <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>, <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070224001934.88A751EAD1FA7@postie1.hosting365.ie>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
> Behalf Of Lee Feigenbaum
> >From where I sit, it seems to be the microformats crowd that has no
> interest in being cooperative with the RDF crowd. (c.f. recent posts like
> http://ben-ward.co.uk/journal/fao-rdf/ ) In addition, there seems to be an
> implicit assumption in much of what I see from the microformat community
> that RDF is only successful if it marks content up on the Web ala RDFa or
> eRDF. I know that there is somewhat of a split even within SWEO on the
> corporate SW vs. SW-on-the-web, but to me comments like "The thing about
> RDF is that no-one has yet demonstrated any real-world reason to care
> about it" seem to beg for some SWEO intervention.
> I think Danny's response is well-worth reading if you haven't already,
> though I remain personally unconvinced that the original post is
> "well-argued".

I think Danny was way too kind - the original argument doesn't stand up for
me. In fact, it demonstrates a very confused/fuzzy opinion.

Some opinions really are more equal than others - Danny's was more equal in
this case :)
Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 00:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC