Re: To RDF or not to RDF

W3C mailer may have dropped the first line of my post for some reason, it
should have said "I am not caught up on this list so my apologies for not
posting on an"...

On 2013-06-21 9:41 PM, "Lassila Ora (Nokia-LC/Boston)"
<Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote:

>[NB: I am not caught up on this list so my apologies for not posting on an
>existing thread, and also for probably saying things other folks have
>already brought up]
>
>I have worked on RDF and systems using RDF for over 15 years now (and on
>RDF's "non-Web" predecessors before that). The most important thing I have
>learned is that while it is possible to do Linked Data and Semantic Web
>stuff *without* RDF, whatever alternative technology you choose, you soon
>feel compelled to add features that make it look like RDF. I particularly
>see this whenever someone comes to me advocating the use of JSON. RDF is
>what it is for a reason, *not* because we arbitrarily threw something
>together.
>
>So it is not that RDF "looks bad" or whatever people might be saying. It
>is that other technologies and approaches "fall short" of what Linked Data
>and Semantic Web really need. Let's not please reinvent things or shove a
>round peg in a square hole just because someone prefers curly braces over
>angle brackets. Issues like that are not interesting (at all), and we have
>more important things to do.
>
>Regards,
>
>	- Ora
>
>-- 
>Dr. Ora Lassila  ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org
>Principal Technologist, Nokia
>

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 01:49:56 UTC