- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:32:33 +0000
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
>>>Jonathan Borden said: > This is the crux of the problem. If Tim Bray can't do RDDL/RDF using his > little toe, with his hand tied behind his back and the rest of him hog tied > and upside down, then what prayer to we have trying to foist this upon the > rest of the world, i.e. people who just want to create and document XML > namespaces? I think he is saying that it is just too complicated -- and my > concern is that to do it correctly is even more complicated -- so the > question is: do the new round of RDF specs simplify the authoring of XML/RDF > for the proverbial "joe web hacker"? ... To be (un)fair to Tim, he got the XML wrong as well - not WF, missing ", bad attributes :) :) To err is human... It was not our goal of revising the RDF specifications to write a new RDF/XML syntax (the charter we signed up to forbids this) such as by simplifying it. There is plenty of room for that and we are well aware of it. Our goals include explaining it better, more formally and giving better introductary materials. This work is just emerging. > Some folks on the XHTML WG say RDF is a > non-starter -- is this true? Can RDF be smoothly integrated with > XHTML? This XHTML and RDF[/XML?] integration issue is news to me. I don't think it is something that RDF Core has been aware of, or at least not highly aware. Non-starter for what purpose? I can't answer that question. RDF is just a technology; it is a non-starter for many purposes that don't fit what it was designed for. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 05:35:59 UTC