- From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:59:12 -0800
- To: xml-dev@xml.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi, we seem to be in a kind of deadlock here: we all agree that the RDF syntax is scary and the RDF datamodel does not reflect the current XML serialization. They were concrete proposals to fix this - but these are of course "non-standard", so nobody uses them. On the other side the W3C seems to wait for practice reports from the new proposals to have input for a new working group. So what to do? Stefan At 06:27 AM 2/25/00 -0500, David Megginson wrote: >Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> writes: > > > RDF: why? > >To exchange serialized objects independent of protocols or programming >language (forget about the semantic web hooey). RDF is suboptimal for >this, but it gets a lot of things right (i.e. extensibility) and there >doesn't seem to be another reasonable candidate out there yet. On the >other hand, the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so >it's hard to know what to do. > >There's a lot of money in this: e-commerce requires much richer data >nowadays, and retailers want that data to flow from wholesalers and >wholesalers want that data to flow from producers. If you take a look >at data-exchange right now (tab-delimited dumps, product-specific >tables, etc.) it's a bit of a bad joke. Writing specific XML formats >for each exchange task is a small improvement, but you miss out on the >network effect of being able to share 90% of the processing software, >because the XML data model is too low-level. > > >All the best, > > >David > >-- >David Megginson david@megginson.com > http://www.megginson.com/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 07:07:39 UTC