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

Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <006f01c28b1a$3f4544f0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

Tim Bray wrote:
>
> In connection with my action item, I've posted a revised RDDL draft at
> http://www.textuality.com/xml/rddl2.html.  It's kind of rough and
> hand-authored.  For those who don't want to plow through the whole
> thing, section 1 should do it, in particular the example in section 1.2.
...
>
> I personally think the RDF version is easier to read and understand than
> the XLink version, but I can see the other side of this too.  -Tim
>
>

Let's look at this, or at any of the other RDDL/RDF versions and answer this
question: is the RDF version easier to read and understand than the XLink
version?

I have a hard time answering this because I consider myself very familiar
with RDF -- what do people who don't use RDF on a daily basis think? If it
really is easier to read and understand then let's update RDDL to use one or
more of the RDF variants.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 09:00:32 GMT

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