Re: Cambridge Communique

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far, particularly Ralph Swick and
Dan Brickley.  Your comments have been helpful in clarifying my confusion.

I understood that the Cambridge Communique lays out a plan for ... well, not
convergence, but ... for rendezvous, I guess would be the best term.  The
action items spell out changes that need to happen (to RDF syntax in
particular) in order to make the potential for mutual compatability a
reality.  The problem is, we can't wait.

I also agree with what Sankar Virdhagriswaran said, particularly about
cognitive load.  The RDFMS is a wonderfully general model, but the usual
reaction to generality is subsetting, if for no other reason than to
simplify the level of understanding required to use it.

I already have a difficult time helping colleagues and product managers
understand the differences between metadata, XML, and RDF. These are people
making fundamental decisions about long-lived data formats that products
will depend on.  They want things simple, settled, and stable.  I can't
imagine adding RDFSchema and XML Schema to the mix, particularly since I
myself was confused by the Cambridge Communique.

Please take this as intended, not as criticism, but as an expression of
disappointment.  I want to ship products with RDF *now*, but maybe now just
isn't the right time. Still, I believe RDF is the best platform for
interchangeable metadata that's ever existed, and I want to see it succeed.

Perry