W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

RE: what RDF is not (was ...)

From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:39:37 -0000
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D1ABE26@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
[...]
> 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.

I disagree.  An assembly language is designed for a processor with a known
instruction set, and therefore almost* all the instructions have
well-defined semantics.  There is currently no known 'instruction set' for
RDF; further, attempts to create one are working at the level of defining
semantics for the triples in RDF, and I think at least Peter and Pat accept
that this work will not be fully compatible with layers such as WebOnt.

I alternate between considering RDF as (a) the bytes within the Semantic Web
processor but where you don't know what the processor will be, or (b) a damn
nuisance.

		- Peter

* Many processors have some combinations of words that map to (at best)
undocumented or (at worst) buggy instructions.
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 05:43:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT