W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: RDF and XML

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:08:14 -0400
Message-Id: <200005231906.PAA12266@hesketh.net>
To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:34 PM 5/23/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>No, I was not asking for you to gain fresh understanding of what RDF
>actually does.  I wanted a one-paragraph expansion of where you said "I am
>actually in favor of what RDF is trying to do."  What I wanted was just a
>slightly expanded statement of what you support, and you casually interpret
>as what RDF is trying to do.

I can do that, but we'd probably do better analyzing RDF in an RDF-specific
forum after this particular tornado has passed.  I'm happy to say that
"formal description of resources is an interesting project", but too many
doubts about the usefulness of formal descriptions to keep them in scope
for this list, much less a one-paragraph summary.  

While there are many possible criticisms of RDF as currently implemented
(complexity, incomprehensibility, uncertain relationship with XML, etc.),
discussing those will take bandwidth (both on this list and in my
ever-shortening time) away from the issue at hand.   I expect frank
discussion between the RDF community and the (large) part of the XML
community with the RDF allergy will also generate more heat, and we've
already got a lot of that.

The part of RDF that's immediately relevant to the issue at hand is
Appendix C.2, which lays down processing rules that some want enforced
within XML namespaces.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 15:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC