- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:08:14 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:34 PM 5/23/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >No, I was not asking for you to gain fresh understanding of what RDF >actually does. I wanted a one-paragraph expansion of where you said "I am >actually in favor of what RDF is trying to do." What I wanted was just a >slightly expanded statement of what you support, and you casually interpret >as what RDF is trying to do. I can do that, but we'd probably do better analyzing RDF in an RDF-specific forum after this particular tornado has passed. I'm happy to say that "formal description of resources is an interesting project", but too many doubts about the usefulness of formal descriptions to keep them in scope for this list, much less a one-paragraph summary. While there are many possible criticisms of RDF as currently implemented (complexity, incomprehensibility, uncertain relationship with XML, etc.), discussing those will take bandwidth (both on this list and in my ever-shortening time) away from the issue at hand. I expect frank discussion between the RDF community and the (large) part of the XML community with the RDF allergy will also generate more heat, and we've already got a lot of that. The part of RDF that's immediately relevant to the issue at hand is Appendix C.2, which lays down processing rules that some want enforced within XML namespaces. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 15:06:23 UTC