- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:43:25 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: [snip] > I understand that the RDF community believes No, please, that should *not* be your takeaway. I think I'm a card carrying RDF community member and I certainly don't believe what follows. I think it's a bit controversial, actually. (One of the things that drives me, personally, nuts is the line that RDF is designed for "Follow you nose" discovery, etc. I don't think it's particularly so designed and I don't think "follow your nose" is a great thing, by and large.) I may be a tad heterodox, but I'm still here :) > that it is better for content > to define how its vocabularies work (whatever that means) rather than > having the tools just natively support the vocabularies, but it > seems much > better to me to just have the tools natively support the vocabularies. If you look back in the GRDDL archives, you'll see me argue along these lines. > That way, you upgrade the tool and everything works better, instead of > having to upgrade the tool and the vocabulary definitions and hope > that > everyone has linked everything together. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 18:44:09 UTC