Re: A bit of bomb throwing....

From: Rickard Öberg <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:42:56 +0100

Zack Rosen wrote:
> [10:56am] chx: RDF <shudder> another bloated XML thing right?
> [10:56am] Morbus: no.
> [10:56am] Morbus: RDF is not XML.
> [10:56am] Morbus: It can be serialized as XML.
> [10:56am] Morbus: Which, yes, I agree, is the devil.
> [10:56am] Morbus: But RDF is best serialized, IMO, as N3.
> [10:56am] Morbus: <g>
> [10:57am] Morbus: zacker: see, for example, the bottom of http://
> [10:57am] zacker: thanks

This "What is RDF?" question is one of the things that needs to be
addressed. For myself, I don't see it as a format at all. For myself,
even if I don't allow ANY external usage of my RDF data there is still
value in it, because making my internal object structure RDF-indexed
makes it queryable and reasonable. For me, personally, that's the big

This whole RDF format and exchange thing is great, but if it stops
people from thinking about it, because they don't exchange information
with other systems (for example), then don't focus on it. It's the
model, goddamnit, and how you can use it *for your own stuff*, that
gives it value, as a starting point.

THEN when you have everything as RDF internally there's the additional
bonus that as it happens you can exchange it with other parties as well,
trivially. But that's step two in the "what's in it for me" chain of

IMO anyway :-)

> The Drupal community is open to collaboration but they are skeptical of
> the value and use afforded by RDF / semantic web technologies. The
> burden of proving this is still upon the research communities
> shoulders. I don't think this is an impossible chasm for this
> community to cross.
> Realistically, If you can't convince the tinkering community who can
> you convince?

See my previous post on the need for "convincing" at all. It's a flawed
approach. IMNSHO.

Received on Wed Jan 18 2006 - 21:42:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT