Re: review of XML in 10 points [was: AGENDA...]

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > >As it has come up in the Semantic Web Coordination Group, it might be worth
> > >spending a short while discussing point nine of XML in 10 points.  As you
> > >might expect I have strong reservations about the claims therein concerning
> > >RDF.
> >
> > Me too. We really ought to put a stern stop to this kind of thing, as
> > publicly as possible; it is simply irresponsible to make claims like
> > this. Who wrote this rubbish?

Well, Pat, you can point to me. I'm Head of the W3C Communications Team, 
and I signed it. That means ultimately I own it.

Allow me to present our problem, and a question:

Given that this document is intended for general consumption; and

Given that in the next 48 hours it will be distributed at a conference 
where the term "Semantic Web" is met, optimally, with mild revulsion, 
and  XML is perceived as the only (meta)-language of worth;

How would you then make the connection between RDF, the Semantic Web,
and XML work, and 
keep it at the 3rd grade reading level? 

Peter started with some language suggestions, but veered off into more
critique which, while factually accurate, appears to miss the objective.
That is, if your objective is to have improvements to a document, you
don't treat the people responsible with disrespect. 

So, Pat, your language skills appear strong; it would be great if those
skills channeled to our mutual benefit before I leave France for
Seattle, which is in 6.5 hours. Peter, the offer is also extended to

It will also be good practice for the press work that will come with
documents this WG publishes. I can assure you that the "technically
accurate" RDF Model and Syntax Recommendation Press Release, which was
written by me three years ago, had the public impact of a wet sock.
Could we work together to strike the balance?

Best regards,



World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Janet Daly, Head of Communications
MIT/LCS NE43-363
200 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139

voice: 617.253.5884
fax:   617.258.5999

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 20:40:22 UTC