- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:07:52 -0400
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5021C9F8.7040006@openlinksw.com>
On 8/7/12 4:25 PM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote: > > So, my belief, at least, is that it would actually be more beneficial > to the entire effort and adoption of the spec if RDF/XML is made > optional because it will entice implementers to "back-into" full > implementation versus having to do waterfall-style full implementation > which may be impractical for smaller entities and/or projects that > need to show value to get traction. So, the concern is rooted in at > least one practical perspective. If we only have a handful of large > entities and niche players implement a standard, it's not a very > successful standard. I don't know how RDF has now come to mean: RDF/XML, circa 2012. RDF/XML isn't popular anywhere. Linked Data resources are less likely to be RDF/XML based, by the second. How has this data representation syntax somehow returned to distracting preeminence? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 02:06:40 UTC