Re: A certain difficulty

David Megginson wrote:
> 
> Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com> writes:
> 
> > Generally speaking, a complicated design is a bad design. I believe
> > the frustration with RDF comes primarily from the casting of the
> > model into XML syntax(es), not from the writing of the
> > spec.
> 
> I disagree -- the XML syntax for RDF has too many annoying variations,
> granted, but the main problem is that the underlying RDF data model is
> much, much more complicated than the spec suggestions.

I would not say that either !
I find the RDF model very simple and uniform (it's all about triples)
which makes its elegance... and for some people its weakness !
In the contrary, the XML syntax is a bit confuse, true.

In my point of view, the problem comes from the recommandation mixing
modeling and syntaxic aspects (I won't mention semantic aspects !)
in a way it's hard to differentiate them without some RDF experience.

  Pierre-Antoine

--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.