Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Tim Bray's Response
Author: Paul Snively Posted: 8/22/2000; 2:19:18 PM Topic: Tim Bray's Response Msg #: 19951 Prev/Next: 19950 / 19952
Tim Bray: All this inference and ontology crap is part of the problem with RDF, not part of the solution. I immodestly claim that the following still is the easiest statement of why anyone should care.
It's important to maintain the conceptual distinction between the "Semantic Web" and RDF. The conceptual tools necessary to the discussion of the notion of the "Semantic Web" may not be appropriate to all applications of RDF, so Tim's point and his link are valid as observations about RDF, but I feel miss the point of the discussion so far, which is (on my part, at any rate!) to attempt to provide some background information that is pertinent to RDF's history and is still pertinent to the extent that RDF is a potential vehicle, if you will, in support of the "Semantic Web." It's hopefully helpful to some people to have access to more background information so that some aspects of RDF are less mysterious, even if the application makes no use of those aspects of RDF. On the other hand, I'm leery of saying "let's jettison those aspects of RDF," lest we render RDF a less useful vehicle to anyone who takes a sincere stab at helping to implement the "Semantic Web."
(Dave's right—I am a man of many words. *sigh*.)
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:10 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.