- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:04:27 +0100
- To: Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, hpti-tech@hpti.info
On 25 Jul 2008, at 09:45, Stephen Williams wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On Jul 24, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: >> >>> Bijan Parsia wrote: >>>> On 24 Jul 2008, at 03:08, Stephen D. Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> I view RDF and related standards in a number of ways, ranging >>>>> from simple application use to AI. One key part is that I >>>>> think that RDF is the next logical step past XML in data >>>>> flexibility and clarity of representation. >>>> >>>> This is by no means obvious. See the lengthy thread starting: >>>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/486A0516.2010702@gmail.com> >>> Many in that thread, except you, agree with me. >> >> So? >> >>> (I waded in 20 messages or so, until it was waist deep in >>> epistemology.) You make good points, but don't convince me that >>> my comment above is wrong, at least in a wide range of applications. >> >> The burden of proof is on you, not me. This is true inherently (as >> you are making a very strong claim) and in particular here (since >> I've provided rather detailed argument and you just got your bald >> assertion). > The burden of proof is shared I think. Existence of a status quo > doesn't automatically justify itself when discrepancies are pointed > out. I think you are working in different dialectics. In that discussion (and thus, I think, in this list) there has been no plausible evidence that RDF is better than XML in terms of model evolution or convergance resulting in invariant queries. Tim Glover made the best attempt to show otherwise, e.g., http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jul/0046.html But I think it was amply refuted (not just by me). I tried to distill some of this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jul/0098.html (It seems similar to the EXI fidelity considerations.) In other words, I am *not* resting on automatic justification of anything. There have been detailed arguments and, at the moment, there nothing plausible left standing that RDF is inherently or practically more flexibly or clear. At the moment, I lean toward "it's a matter of taste, temperament, experience, infrastructure, *and* task". > Practically though, you're right. Certainly I and any co- > conspirators that I may have need to provide prove this better. [snip] Or at all. Seriously. (This isn't about binary formats, it's about RDF vs. XML.) Unless you can really build a good case I think it's very counterproductive to sell RDF this way. Even then, I'd be super leary about strong claims. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 12:02:07 UTC