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:fmanola@a...] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Peter Hunsberger
Cc: James Fuller; xml-dev@l...
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
> <james.fuller.2007@g...> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php