The problem, however, is that it's utterly pointless. Henry's position regarding RDF is well established, as is the WG's general opposition towards using RDF. I think that it's safe to say that no one is going to change their minds regarding the value and use of RDF. This late in the game, trying to debunk Henry's arguments serves no purpose other than to distract the discussion away from other, more important conversations... like the security considerations that still need to be wrapped up.
- James Bill de hÓra wrote: > > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Could y'all take this religious war offline? Is is not appropriate for >> this mailing list, and doesn't help us get our protocol finished. Thanks! > > I understand. But, this is not a religious war, this is about revisiting > design decisions late in the process. As the "other RDF guy in the room" > fundamental nonsense about RDF as a better alternative or modeling > approach for protocol formats needs to be debunked, firmly, on-list, or > it won't stop coming up. Plus, and again as the "other RDF guy in the > room", I won't let these kind of unsubstantiated claims stand for the > record. No way. > > cheers > Bill > >
