- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:53:33 -0800
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 11:03 AM 12/13/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote: >Yes quadruples, or even ntupels That something that doesn't exist ("greener grass just over there") is better than something that *works* right now seems a tad irrelevant. At a panel in Brisbane I saw a bunch of people sort of good-naturedly chide Tim (who was there and may even have been amused) for not making hyperlinks all the great things they could be. Meanwhile we got several years of incredible use out of what *was* instead of continuing to wrangle about what *could be*. I could be completely out of line, but the idea that using RDF as an internal means of indexing (which can be done and is being done as we speak) should be down-played as "not very useful" was what I was questioning. The alternatives to my using a qwerty keyboard that involve pen-based and voice-recognition systems have been "six months away" for thirty years and I just get a feeling that a similar thing just *might* be happening here. Without analysis, it's clear synthesis would be less effective, however (and I plead that that's what I meant by "but") the ratio seems askew. The RDF Rec is almost two years old - it may not point to a perfect or even elegant solution but our disagreement centers only on the "not very useful" part. And you may very well be right, but I'd like to try unless there's something really "broke" that needs fixing. If that's the case, bring it on! -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 15:53:50 UTC