Peter: > (I think that > even your second mechanism, without appropriate disclaimers, can mislead > users into thinking that RDF can do more than it really can.) > This seems to be the heart of the disagreement (if any). I tend to regard RDF as an assembly language for information. Like assembly you can do many things, but also like assembly, it isn't really the appropriate level to work at for almost everything. In the example we are talking about RDF really is being used to represent shared descriptions; and Peter is quite right to say that RDF does not support this - but it doesn't stop us giving certain predicates that reading. Peter's apparant position is understandable as a reaction to the hype, but strikes me as being as one-sided as the hype he is reacting to. JeremyReceived on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 04:56:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:39 UTC