- From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:48:16 +0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, bill.roberts@planet.nl, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > With the sincerest respect, Tom, your attitude here is part of the problem. > But in any case, this is ridiculous. RDF is just XML text, for goodness > sake. I need to insert lines of code into a server file, and write PHP > scripts, in order to publish some RDF or HTML? That is insane. It would > have been insane in the mid-1990s and its even more insane now. IMO, it is > you (and Tim and the rest of the W3C) who are stuck in the past here. Cheers for Pat \o/ , with all the due respect for all involved and the amount of great work so far, lets just move ahead. If there is a single better simpler way to do things it should be reccomended at once and the rest be dropped. "celebrate diversity" and keeping more compelx specs alive while there is no legacy "use" of it is just a way to further lose credibilty and ultimately relevance. It is not a case that you find a lot of universities talking in here but no google or yahoo or msn or whoeever else.. just sharing: I was at last week at SemTech and had a change to have some very interesting discussions. The big search engine guys i was talking to were all perfectly aware of all but just decided to stay clear becouse light years distant from what they know they can (and will) ask people publish HTML to do in terms of metadata . "and when we do propose something, any big web site will simply follow it.. why should they not. ". :-) a report, not a speculation. Giovanni
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:49:23 UTC