Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

Paul Prescod wrote:

>
> Seems to you. But I've been hearing Lisp programmers say similar things
> for years. And look at where that got Lisp. I hope for more success for
> RDF and XLink. Syntax matters. Names of things matter.
>

The "standard answer" to this seems to be that "we will hide the syntax
behind a visual environment", but you are correct. FWIW, the WebOnt WG has
decided that although RDF/XML is the normative exchange syntax for OWL, that
alternative presentation syntaxes will be developed for pretty much exactly
the reasons you point out. For example UML is being developed as a
presentation syntax for OWL, but I digress...

well I'm still unconvinced that exchanging "href" for "x:href" is that big a
deal. It's not a bad compromise IMHO.

Jonathan