W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:08:22 -0500
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020122070822Y.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:00:34 -0500 (EST)

> RDF 1.0 was
> kept pretty simple, and it isn't suprising that we're pushing at the
> limits of what we can get done with such a simple representational system.

> Dan

I just cannot let this statement go by without registering the strongest

I believe that RDF is *not* simple.  On the contrary, I firmly hold the
view that RDF is one of the most complex representation formalisms I have
ever encountered.

Complexity is not (solely) measured by the amount of implementation effort
required to build a minimal parser for a language, although even building a
minimal parser for RDF is considerably more complex than building a minimal
parser for many representation formalisms.  Complexity also has to do with how
hard it is to understand the syntax of a representation formalism, how hard
it is to come up with an understanding of the basic principles of the
representation formalism, and how hard it is to determine just what the
constructs of the representation formalism mean, among other aspects.  In
all three of the above areas RDF is significantly more complex than most
representation formalisms.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 07:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:26 UTC