Raw

> Re. your suggestion that RDF itself is too "SGML", there I differ. The model itself is conceptually simple



The problem with SGML wasn't a too complex model; the model wasn't all that different from XML. The problem was that *creating toolkits* and working against unessential idiosyncracies was too expensive. That sounds very much like RDF to me.



Of course, after eight or so years of RDF, everybody involved has their little bit that they absolutely can't live without and will defend to their death, be it the OWA or reification or formulae or blank nodes or named graphs or literals-as-subjects, so there's not much hope for consensus over an “RDF Lite”.



> If I want to use a relational database, I won't try to decipher and implement Codd's formal description, I'll download MySQL. If I want an RDF store/API I'll use Jena or Redland or one of the many other available toolkits.



The tools are still far from a state where they are usable for “non-believers.” I still can't download MyRDF anywhere. Sure, just let the tools mature for another few years … but till then, something will have grown out of the OPML/RSS/JSON/RoR frenzy, something that crudely solves 80% of the SemWeb problems with 20% of the cost. We'll scream “But RDF did this ten years ago!” and will be ignored, and we'll retool once more. Personally I'd rather work with RDF Lite than with some OPML/Javascript mutant.@en