danbri at danbri.org
Sat Dec 18 12:21:04 CET 2010
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen
<kidehen at openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps not worth labouring the point - last thing either of us wants
>> is more confusion when we seek simple clarity.
> Put RDF to one side, it cannot be pitched as being everything. Just as
> everything isn't a Resource. We exist in a continuum, lets fit into said
> continuum and lots of inclusion induced progress will be the reward.
Kingsley, you're not making sense. "Resource" is just RDF's technical
term for "thing". You're arguing that all things are not things, now?
> The RDF narrative is wrong and broken. If this weren't true, then why on
> earth does it trigger such hard feelings wherever it shows up?
A big part is that this class of technology (open-world, extensible
graph data) has built-in frustrations. It is just annoying to work
with. Also the RDF tooling environment is not yet what it should be,
which brings additional practical frustrations to practitioners.
Swapping to new acronyms and buzzphrases will address neither problem.
> 1. http://ycmi.med.yale.edu/nadkarni/eav_cr_frame.htm -- and older EAV note
> -- just found this via a quick Google lookup .
> Kingsley Idehen
> President& CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-protocols