Henry Story wrote:
But as Kuhn [2] and Feyerabend [3] have very well argued, these types of debates are not won through argument. People work within paradigms that forge their vision of the world. So that counterexamples will always be pushed aside.
I agree that these debates are not won through argument. I don't agree that they're not won through counterexample, or at least that counterexample isn't a critical component of debate winning.
I look at your N3 example and I don't see anything there that isn't in the XML form. Most importantly I don't see what it buys me. I don't see how it makes my life any easier than non-RDF XML, or how it lets me do anything I can't already do.
Now if you could show me an example of how to *use* this N3/RDF stuff to do things I can't equally or more easily accomplish with raw XML, then I'd pay attention. But every time I go looking for real, practical RDF I find a huge amount of talk and philosophical arguments but no significant, practical applications.
By contrast when I look at XML I find numerous practical applications; and people getting work done while ignoring the philosophy. It's not that the philosophy isn't important; but philosophy without practical application is mental exercise at best.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
