RE: Complexity

 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@sidar.org] 
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2005 17:10
> Para: Carlos Iglesias; public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: Complexity
> 
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +1000, Carlos Iglesias 
> <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> 
> >> Shadi has often noted that there is not a lot of RDF
> >> expertise _in this group_ -
> >
> > So, you're saying that I'm right, because I'm sure that 
> there's is a lot  
> > of Evaluation and Repair tools expertise _in this group_ 
> and, if there  
> > is not a lot of RDF expertise, there is the best proof that 
> RDF is not  
> > well known.
> 
> Basically, yes. It seems complex to Evaluation and Repair 
> tool developers  
> in this group. (There are others out there with a lot more 
> RDF expertise,  
> in fact).


And there are others out there without a lot of RDF expertise too, so we
are at the same point again.


> >> I have
> >> seen many developers simply assume that it is very very
> >> difficult, and thus make an ill-informed choice.
> >
> > So, again, you're saying that I'm right. RDF SEEMS complex for the  
> > people.
> 
> I am saying that it is important that we consider carefully 
> how complex  
> RDF actually is, and this means we have to do some work 
> because we as a  
> group are not particularly well placed to judge until we have 
> some more  
> experience.

And again I repeat, as Shadi said, RDF is less common and more complex
than basic XML and SQL. This just mean that we must be clear in that,
nothing else.

Regards,

CI.

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 16:47:26 UTC