- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:43:39 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 08/08/12 19:19, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote: > > [Andy] > Finding the balance of flexibility and commonality is important. i > don't think we have advanced things if we end up with a metamodel but > isolated islands of connected apps because different groupings use > different serializations. > [Reza] > I think this is a key statement that I don't agree with and would like > to see how many of the people here do or do not agree with. My point is > not religious: I don't care about RDF one way or the other. What I'm > saying is that it's completely impractical if we're proposing that all > the people in the world who have existing data in much more prevalent > formats are to convert their serialization models to RDF/XML. I think > this, by itself, will make the probability of wide adoption of this > standard go close to 0. It's like asking people to go convert all their > data. It's impractical. Won't happen. Costs too much. Are you saying > that we're going to have lots of large data providers all of sudden say > "wow, there is this cool new standard, let me go spend a billion dollars > to convert all my data to it so that it can be linked to and I can go > link to other people". I specifically said: """ I'm not proposing everything is in RDF """ I suggest that the item (the content) is whatever format you want. It the part that can be understood *across* boundaries that is in RDF. No one is asked to convert anything. [[ Reza I would say 90% of the value is still in Prov-DM which provides a conceptual model so that implementers think about the structural design of their systems ]] From this I read that you want portability of ideas and concepts. I hope we do not just define an abstract architecture because if we do, we have not done anything new as existing approaches are just fine. I want to make computer systems interoperate. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 18:44:07 UTC