Some questions

Walter Underwood wunder at
Wed Dec 1 22:04:32 GMT 1999

At 12:40 PM 12/1/99 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>And here is my attempt to explain why RDF hasn't been more successful:
>  The syntax is hideously ugly and hard to understand, and the spec worries
>  so hard about being correct and complete that it is pretty well 100%
>  incomprehensible to ordinary people.

Agree. I've written a product that used MCF (RDF's predecessor)
and written schemas for OODBs, and I can't make much sense of
the RDF spec. Maybe it is semi-obvious to anyone with a background
in knowledge representation, but it needs to be explained differently
for the other 99.99% of us.

>I think its potential is huge, dwarfing that of XML.   -Tim

I disagree on this one. It's rare that metacontent is more
valuable than content, long-term. I'll bet on the books over
the card catalog, every time.

Walter R. Underwood
wunder at
wunder at (home)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list