- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:39:25 +0300
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
(going off topic - I couldn't think of a subject line other than "in defence of Mark Butler" - I guess he doesn't need any really) Sean: > yet another person who so > openly slams RDF/XML [2] without, as far as I know, following the old > "don't criticize if you can't do any better" maxim. ... > [2] http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/isTheSemanticWebHype.pdf I have read Mark Butler's slide set above and, while it expresses a relatively extreme position, he backs it up and makes a good case. I think it is a mistake to ignore such criticism merely on the grounds of it not being constructive: particularly since those grounds are false. Mark constructively suggests a plan of action: page 36, (including) > Produce a standard XML serialisation of RDF which is > - easier to understand > - more compatible with existing XML tools > Demonstatre: > - how to use RDF/XML with existing XML tools Having said that I think I believe that any further serialization work for RDF should either: - be very limited in scope (XENT is a little too complicated for my liking) - or be at a higher level than a syntax, but provide a means to annotate an arbitrary XML schema/relaxng/... to provide a mapping to RDF of a conforming document. If you want easy to read and write then XML (of your choice) works. If you want fully general then RDF/XML exists, and a subset of it might do; or XENT or some variant might be better. (RDF/XML suffers from the property problem). I am a lot less convinced by Mark's arguments against the semantics of the semantic web - mainly because I am a thorough going non-realist. I note in human discourse we never can escape words and symbols to arrive at some platonic ideal, and I don't expect machines to do any better. I also hope that we are getting close to the point where the bashing of M&S will stop ... I believe that the current working drafts are a significant improvement. Jeremy (I am not speaking on behalf of HP either)
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 04:39:32 UTC