W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: RDF syntax 'improvements'? - was RE: [Fwd: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed.]

From: Frank V. Castellucci <frankc@colconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:06:41 -0400
Message-ID: <398AA3C1.66B04C0D@colconsulting.com>
CC: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Did you consider that some people haven't had the time yet to digest
your post? Or that the dog may have eaten the e-mail?

I'd say let it cook.

Lee Jonas wrote:
> 
> I half expected my thoughts to get garbaged, I didn't expect them to go
> without comment!  I pitched them in to encourage people to stand back and
> think more fundamentally about RDF syntax.
> 
> I appologise if I have offended anyone.  I think that the conceptual side of
> RDF is great work.  I also share the desire to help the Semantic Web take
> off.  But I feel that the syntax is unnecessarily complex, confusing and
> goes against certain other XML technologies.
> 
> I realise that the ideas I put forward are only preliminary thoughts and
> probably won't stand up to close stcrutiny, but are they worth pursuing?
> 
> Are they so off the mark that they are not worth discussing?  What are their
> pros and cons?
> 
> Is it too soon after the RDF recommendation to suggest future
> 'improvements'?  Should we just try to live with RDF as is?
> 
> regards
> 
> Lee

-- 
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux
http://PythPat.sourceforge.net
Pythons Pattern Package
Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 07:04:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT