I won't comment on the success or failure of RDF, but it seems to me
that it's highly abstract, not necessarily highly generic.
What is a generic vocabulary? One that serves too many masters? Poorly
focused? Become confused in the minds of consumers as referring to a
whole class of (vocabularies | schemas) rather than just the one?
Bruce B Cox
Manager, Standards Development Division
OCIO/SDMG
571-272-9004
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Manola [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Peter Hunsberger
Cc: James Fuller;
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
On Jan 30, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:04 AM, James Fuller
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>> point 2. If an XML vocabulary is too generic it will fail
>>
>
> So, what's the consensus; is RDF a failure?
Nope. Just generic enough.
>
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
