Re: GoodRelations Light

On 19 May 2011, at 02:23, glenn mcdonald wrote:
> And yet, a piece of me still doesn't understand the thinking here. If I were emotionally invested in RDF, I feel like I would be madly trying to evolve it to make these something-elses unnecessary. But maybe that's just a illusion I have the luxury of entertaining because I'm not directly involved...

Part of the problem is the variety of communities that have a stake in RDF. Web hackers, database implementers, logicians, librarians, enterprise information integration vendors, philosophers, open data advocates.

A lot of them *are* trying to evolve RDF like hell, but since they all need quite different things and have different higher-level technologies layered on top of RDF, for any proposed change there are loud protestations from some other camp that this is damaging and goes in exactly the wrong direction; and well-intentioned reformers end up spending their time defeating the proposals of some other camp.

So we end up with an uncomfortable stalemate, with plenty of flaming, blaming and finger-pointing, where change is *hard*.

Some day, someone will do to the RDF stack what XML did to SGML. It'll be glorious.


Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 14:11:14 UTC