4 ms·

Hey, I really wish that "subject/predicate/object" was all that RDF was, but I'm afraid it's a good deal more: RDF Syntax: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-sy

• ekidd 16y ago
  I agree that a lot of the standards surrounding RDF are ugly. I've always particularly disliked the RDF-as-XML serialization, which took two fairly simple ideas (triples and XML) and combined them into a complex mess. This is why I always hate parsing RSS 1.0. Also, the full generality of OWL just confuses me: It seems to be Prolog done badly. But just as with XML, it's possible to ignore the cruft (XQuery, XLink, XML Schema, the current SOAP flavor-of-the-month), and just use the useful bits. A similar argument could be made about HTML: For every HTML 5, there's an XHTML 2.0.
  • lukev 16y ago
    Agreed. You can get all the benefits of RDF while eschewing the stupid parts. Just because something has a spec doesn't mean you have to use it. The full XML spec, for example, is insanely complicated. But people still derive value from it by utilizing a more or less sane subset.
• mindcrime 16y ago
  You don't have to use all of that stuff though. "Stuff" layers on progressively to add functionality.