I meant to post this blog entry quite a while ago, but never did. Then Stephen went off on the old show versus tell riff, and I thought… lets not waste the words.
A representative of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) crowd asked: What’s Wrong With RDF? I often ask myself the same question.Elias Torres was responding to a post by Sam Ruby about an “RDF Tax”, that is, a technical overhead (possibly unneccesary).
My biggest issue with RDF is that nobody shows it to me. The RDF community is fairly vociferous and energetic in its claims about requirements for a Semantic Web. I (used to) subscribe to Planet RDF in the hope I might get some pointers to something cool you can do with RDF. I have downloaded RDF browsers to play with.
But points like this one, assuming i am parsing it right, from Elias tend to make me nervous:
“I just don’t think that the Atom folks intended for Atom to be able to express all of the semantics needed for the wide variety of concepts being captured by this new generation of apps in Web 2.0 and neither was the case for Atom extensions.”
Of course, the Atom folks surely didn’t intend, or attempt to establish all possible use cases and extensibilties around Web 2.0. But that is a good thing. The ATOM gang is smart but they don’t have crystal balls. They wanted to get things done.
What do I think is wrong with RDF? Mostly that I can’t see it, touch it, or feel it.
The RDF crowd surely needs to do less telling and more showing.