Re: Proposal for extension mechanism

On 17 February 2015 at 01:16, Kingsley  Idehen <> wrote:
> On 2/16/15 4:48 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 02/15/2015 08:48 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 2/15/15 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> ...
>> addresses the needs of a community that wasn't optimally
>> served by the generic Semantic Web meme. A lot of that (as already
>> stated) has all to do with the incentives that arise naturally from the
>> visible support of Google, Yandex, Yahoo!, and Microsoft (via Bing!).
>> That's massive, and its negates the prescriptive specification problem
>> that's dogged RDF from the onset. Ironically, if RDF was correctly
>> pitched as a formalization of what was already in use, we would have
>> reduced 17 years to something like 5, no kidding!
>> For instance, Imagine if <link/> and "Link:" had been incorporated into
>> the RDF narrative as existing notations for representing entity
>> relations? Basically, Web Masters, HTML+Javascript developers, and the
>> Microformats (now IndieWeb folks) would have be far less confused and
>> resistant to the RDF -- especially as would have prevented the massive
>> RDF/XML blob of confusion that ultimately obscured everything.
> You may find this discussion relevant:
> It even has a Linked Open Data URI:
> .
> Aside from the issues identified by the HTTP URI above, there's a
> fundamental need to actually acknowledge the fact that <link/> and "Link:"
> are notations (HTML and HTTP respectively) for representing entity
> relationship types (relations). And by implication a notation for
> representing subject->predicate->object statements --  which actually
> demonstrates that RDF is a retrospective standardization of what was already
> in use on the Web, as any standard should be.

This larger conversation has been rumbling along since Nov'96.

For the purposes of this current thread can we nudge things back
towards discussion of extensions?



Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 08:34:02 UTC