- From: Frank V. Castellucci <frankc@colconsulting.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:06:41 -0400
- CC: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Did you consider that some people haven't had the time yet to digest your post? Or that the dog may have eaten the e-mail? I'd say let it cook. Lee Jonas wrote: > > I half expected my thoughts to get garbaged, I didn't expect them to go > without comment! I pitched them in to encourage people to stand back and > think more fundamentally about RDF syntax. > > I appologise if I have offended anyone. I think that the conceptual side of > RDF is great work. I also share the desire to help the Semantic Web take > off. But I feel that the syntax is unnecessarily complex, confusing and > goes against certain other XML technologies. > > I realise that the ideas I put forward are only preliminary thoughts and > probably won't stand up to close stcrutiny, but are they worth pursuing? > > Are they so off the mark that they are not worth discussing? What are their > pros and cons? > > Is it too soon after the RDF recommendation to suggest future > 'improvements'? Should we just try to live with RDF as is? > > regards > > Lee -- Frank V. Castellucci http://corelinux.sourceforge.net OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux http://PythPat.sourceforge.net Pythons Pattern Package
Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 07:04:28 UTC