Re: A certain difficulty

I can relate to this!

As a writer who follows W3C specs quite closely ( and I am a member of a W3C
working group), if i have to write on a subject it usually takes me less
than a half-days reading to "get up to speed'.

However the RDF spec. is particularly obtuse, and every time i have to write
something on RDF my heart sinks, because i know it will take me a good 1-3
days research before i am sure i have got it right!

i am sure that this is one of the major reasons that the RDF rec. has not
been widely used!

frank

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 11:52 AM
Subject: A certain difficulty


> I was an invited speaker at the W3C/WAP Forum workshop on Position
> Advantaged Information Systems (PAIS)at INREA last week.
>
> Both I, representing SKiCal, and the man representing the Open GIS
> Consortium, made references to RDF representation of our respective
domains.
>
> During the GIS talk the following was heard from the floor.
>
> "We (a working group of 7 technicians from the WAP FORUM Telematics Expert
> Group) tried it (RDF).  We tried like hell for over a week's time and we
> never got it. Sure we could put some things together with nodes and arcs,
> but after that we had no idea where to go.  We downloaded every thing we
> could find, only to become more confused."
>
> "XML is a cinch - but with RDF you have to make yourself a choice;  Either
> RDF is stupid - or you are!"
>
> I thought this was a pretty brave thing to say, since nobody else in the
> room had dared to say (if that was the case) that they had had trouble
> understanding RDF.  But then  assenters starting making themselves known
> through out the room.
>
> Despite who or what is stupid, I guess I am not as brave as the kid who
> called the king naked, in saying that the syntax and model specifications
> are not the documents they should be if we are going to win converts to
the
> RDF cause.
>
> Perhaps they should be tightened up to the terseness of XML 1.0.  Or
someone
> can find a good pedagogue to take care of the verbosity stuff.
>
> That this group of engineers made a sincere effort to implement RDF and
> failed, is saddening
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
***************************************************************************
> This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
> To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
> List archives are available at
http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
>
***************************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 02:38:11 UTC