- 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
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 protest. 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