- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:31:13 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[Moving from www-tag to www-rdf-interest] At 03:54 21/11/04 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >So RDF files are typically served application/rdf+xml though often >they have a "dominant namespace" whose presence drives the data >structures, with other namespaces typically being somewhat >annotational in their use. While I agree with this observation, I do wonder if it's mainly indicative of the immature state of RDF usage? I could imagine that in an environment where RDF is widely used, more documents served may not have a clear single purpose. Consider the example of documents using Foaf, which have been presented as capturing the sorts of things that might appear on a home page. It seems to me that, over time, the Foaf content (and structural dominance) of such pages may become relatively insignificant. (Compared with XML, I happen to think that one of RDF's big contributions is syntactically well-defined mixing and combination of vocabularies, so I think the RDF experience here could (should?) turn out differently to the XML experience.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 10:38:42 UTC