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

Re: Why is RDF such a tough sell?

From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:01:57 EDT
Message-ID: <3c.2043b921.2a4a2635@aol.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

In a message dated 6/25/02 1:34:54 AM US Mountain Standard Time, decoy@iki.fi 
writes:
> >Imagine the search engines of the future; they can either be built to
>  >understand *just* the RDF model and "plug in" vocabularies as needed, or
>  >they will be stuck attempting to understand potentially thousands of
>  >independently developed XML Schemas.
>  
>  I'd add syndication and metadata harvesting, here. In the RDF framework,
>  neither of these applications needs to know anything about what is
>  processed, but they can still function. They become pure middleware, using
>  a common vocabulary expressed by RDF. That's a lot cleaner than having
>  each intermediary component understand the data it's passing through. This
>  sort of thing might sound like a pure engineering benefit, but it's real
>  enough if syndicated dataflows ever grow large enough.

I must be missing something.  We talk about "plug in" vocabularies -- I 
assume via RDFS.  So what is the difference between needing to 
know 1000 RDFS vocabularies to do anything useful and knowing 1000
XML Schema vocabularies?

I would love to see a sample program that does something useful without
knowing a vocabulary beyond what RDF provides.

 - Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
www.mcbrad.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 16:03:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT