RE: [humanmarkup-comment] [RDFCore] Items (was: HumanMarkup: Pave dWith Good Intentions)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

As long as the RDF(s) specialists are here, yes.  I mentioned 
Schema because that was where we seemed to have more talent 
and the RDF experts seemed intent on bailing.  I am glad they 
are not and hope the RDF works builds up a mighty head of steam 
for the mountains of work ahead. 

My impression of Sean's paper and Manos' response was that he 
and Sean consider RDF the superior technology and the only 
solution worth considering.  That would be shortsighted. 
The real gold we are mining here has nothing to do with 
the technologies we choose to implement but everything 
to do with the ideas we choose to implement.  

The most important things we 
have created to date are the shared concepts of how 
to improve human communication and these come from 
our research into what the experts on that subject 
in different fields have published.  Our synthesis 
of this is vital; our implementations, grunt work.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@humanmarkup.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:22 PM
To: Manos Batsis; OASIS Comment; OASIS TC MAIN
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] [RDFCore] Items (was: HumanMarkup:
Paved With Good Intentions)


Excellent Manos!  This is an great start for formal RDF discussion.

Len mentioned the primary discussion at this point should concentrate on XML
Schema primarily, but there are arguments why an RDF implementation might be
beneficial concurrently.  In my opinion, it warrants discussion in its own
right.