Re: Some heresies (was Re: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs")

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:34 AM, <tim.glover@bt.com> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
>
Hi Tim,

>
>
> I am a long time observer on this thread, and as far as I can gather many
> of your “heresies” are in fact uncontroversial,  and people like Pat Hayes
> said them loudly and often from the beginning.
>

Are you sure "uncontroversial" is the right word, rather than "well known"?
 In my (recent) experience there is fairly strong resistance in many
quarters to the notion that RDF is really about graphs and not "knowledge"

“I think the fact that after all these years this stuff is still so
> ill-defined strongly suggests that the standard RDF metalanguage has failed
> and it's time for fresh approaches”
>
>
>
> THANK YOU!!!!!   Thank goodness someone is saying this at last.  I have
> watched in astonished amazement as University professors bickered for over a
> decade on how to say “The cat sat on the mat”. This is a ludicrous waste of
> effort.  RDF is garbage and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
>
>
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but if you say "RDF as knowledge
representation" I would have to agree, more or less.  On the other hand, if
you ignore all the amateur philosophy RDF is quite useful (and easily
understandable) as a graph calculus.

Thanks,

Gregg