- From: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:18:27 -0800
- To: "'Mark Birbeck'" <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>, xml-dev@xml.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I agree that the point of a spec is rigor and completeness, and that it shouldn't be expected to be a tutorial. However, I DO NOT agree that the invention being specified shouldn't be expected to be accessible. Generally speaking, a complicated design is a bad design. I believe the frustration with RDF comes primarily from the casting of the model into XML syntax(es), not from the writing of the spec. Furthermore, inventions are only useful to the extent to which they are used. If an invention is brilliant but incomprehensible, no one will use it. I worry sometimes that RDF will fall prey to a similar history as Lisp and Smalltalk. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Mark Birbeck [mailto:Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:21 AM To: xml-dev@xml.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: RE: A certain difficulty [ snip ] One last point, I must rehearse an old argument from the days of the namespaces debate (remember that one?!) - that it is not the responsibility of the spec writers to make their inventions accessible. A spec must be rigorous and avoid ambiguity so that others can implement their software in a way that they know will be compatible with others. Contributions to the list on how obtuse the RDF and RDFS specs are, are pointless (as are existential debates on whether, I, the reader, am stupid, and philosophical debates on whether it is possible for a spec to be stupid). What we need are good illustrations and articles and this thing will turn round fast. Best regards, Mark
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2000 13:13:26 UTC