[RDF] Re: RDF digest, Vol 1 #25 - 1 msg

[Stefan Andersson]

Hi Dan!

> > It's frustrating to constantly get more things to consider.
> 
> Yeah, but it's not all bad! Things can only get better and more
> interesting. More code == more fun...

I'd say it's also both stimulationg and frustrating to see how RDF
interest is exploding, but still not that many cool, useable, public
applications have emerged.

I just explained to Jonas that it feels like it must have felt in '94
watching the web boulder start rolling... you feel there's great
opportunity, but what will be the 'killer-apps', who will get the
first-mover advantage?

> > Just as I have a clear idea how to do things, and actualy have som code,
> > there comes a couple of things that could be used as a base.
> 
> Yeah, appreciate the frustration. I personally want to get on and build
> higher level apps; right now I'm trying that via strawman APIs against
> work-in-progress backends. By this time next year I hope we'll all have
> some common base(s) to build on...

On a different note, I'm currently writing a e-business-paper touching
on the incompabilities between XML and RDF, and I'm beginning to get
really concerned with the way RDF (the DLG part) and RDF Schema digress
konceptually with XML, XML Schema and RDF Syntax.

I'm not really finished with the paper yet, but I begin to sense a
ticking bomb there... at least if we're supposed to use RDF and RDF
Schema derivatives to describe e-business transactions. Which, as far as
I can see, is the only way we'll have even a remote chance of automatic
schema conflict resolution, which in turn is a prerequisite for an open,
global, automated electronic marketplace...

That's why I felt it was somewhat disheartening to read the Cambridge
Communique.

> > Maby we could have used Redland.  But I feel that we should do a
> > indipendant implementation and maby use those C libraries in a future
> > rewrite provided they have the functions we require.
> 
> Makes sense. Dave is about to roll a release of Redland for people to play
> with. Good opportunity to revisit the common APIs thread on
> www-rdf-interest I think...

Actually, this is equally frustrating. But I think you are right. In a
year or so, there will probably have emerged some larger code bases.

Right now it feels very much like '...and this one gives me _that_' -
but I do think that Jonas think[er]ing is a tad extra.

Kram,
/Stefan