Henry Story wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006, at 02:15, Bill de hÓra wrote:
RDF on the web has failed.
Not at all. The biggest xml data experiment on the web that chose xml is
failing: SOAP. [0]
SOAP is not a data model. It's not the biggest XML on the web
experiment. XML is not comparable to RDF. Pointing at SOAP and shouting
"fire" doesn't fool anyone.
The biggest rdf data experiment on the web is RSS1.0. Enough said.
I don't need to mistake mime types for data formats. Atom does hardly
anything and yet it has to invent a new mime type!
So do all the semweb technologies, and they still probably don't work
properly as a web interlingua. How should I interpret an OWL document
served with an RDF media type? Which theory will I apply?
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 [...]
You should just say "you don't get it".
I am not the syndication geek you're looking for. I've worked with RDF
on and off for over half a decade, contributed to the standards process.
When I finish this email I'm going back to wrap up a product to use SKOS
in Plone before the world cup starts. If you want a new paradigm, you'll
have to do better than railing about the current one.
* But of course, you're not /really/ using it.
BlogEd, which I completed in a simple form a year ago, is using it.
RDF isn't expressive enough for what you need to do. Look at your code
again and be assured you have gone well beyond RDF semantics.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0198248547/
read the essay by Drew McDermott. I think you need a crisis of faith.
cheers
Bill
