W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Another RDDL/RDF proposal

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:43:47 -0500
Message-ID: <036b01c28abe$7eba8ed0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

Brian McBride wrote:
> o there does seem to be a lot of confusion about regarding what rdf/xml
can
> and cannot do.  There seemed to be a number of statements in this thread
> which didn't seem quite right.  RDFCore is close to completing a new set
of
> specs.  Any chance you guys could give some of them a look over.  It would
> certainly be useful to us to know if we have managed to improve the
> presentation/explanation of RDF.  Feedback on how to improve them would be
> very timely.

This is the crux of the problem. If Tim Bray can't do RDDL/RDF using his
little toe, with his hand tied behind his back and the rest of him hog tied
and upside down, then what prayer to we have trying to foist this upon the
rest of the world, i.e. people who just want to create and document XML
namespaces? I think he is saying that it is just too complicated -- and my
concern is that to do it correctly is even more complicated -- so the
question is: do the new round of RDF specs simplify the authoring of XML/RDF
for the proverbial "joe web hacker"? Some folks on the XHTML WG say RDF is a
non-starter -- is this true? Can RDF be smoothly integrated with XHTML?

Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2002 22:03:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT