Just been testing a few RSS feeds with this new Funkidator thingary.
Apparently my client's feed is funky. Thank goodness for that. Whereas RSS guru Sam Ruby's feed is not funky.
I found a link to Dr Mark's excellent slide show on RDF and the Semantic Web on Tim Bray's blog. Besides being a good overview of things semantic, it objectively looks at the weaknesses of RDF and why take up is slow.
The major problems identified are:
The complexity of the current XML serialisation of RDF triples.
The performance overhead of RDF databases and triple stores.
Semantic linking.
Those of you who have 'banged your head' against the RDF wall might relate to the following quote from the slides. You see, we weren't stupid after all.
The following was heard at a W3C/WAP Forum Workshop:
We (a working group of 7 technicians from the WAP FORUM Telematics Expert Group) tried it (RDF). We tried like hell for over a week's time and we never got it. Sure we could put some things together with nodes and arcs, but after that we had no idea where to go. We downloaded every thing we could find, only to become more confused. XML is a cinch - but with RDF you have to make yourself a choice; Either RDF is stupid - or you are!
I thought this was a pretty brave thing to say, since nobody else in the room had dared to say that they had had trouble understanding RDF. But then assenters starting making themselves known through out the room. Despite who or what is stupid, I guess I am not as brave as the kid who called the king naked, in saying that the syntax and model specifications are not the documents they should be if we are going to win converts to the RDF cause. Perhaps they should be tightened up to the terseness of XML 1.0. Or someone can find a good pedagogue to take care of the verbosity stuff. That this group of engineers made a sincere effort to implement RDF and failed, is saddening.
Reading through some other personal anecdotes, it appears that the W3C is the main stumbling block to a change in RDF XML syntax. Until they put their hands up and say 'Yes, this a dog, the Semantic Web will not happen until it is changed', RDF applications are a no no. Alternative syntax specifications will find it hard to gain critical mass unless they get W3C support.
Over in my other blogspace at Ecademy, there is an ongoing debate in the Web Services Club on that perennial brain teaser, how exactly do you define a web service?
Any input from .Net bloggers with a short snappy definition (marketing department friendly of course) would be appreciated.
I have several components that run with external linked files such as XML Schema and XSLT stylesheets. I like to link rather than embed so I can extend and enhance without re-compile.
The only way I have found to link these files at compile is using the command line compiler and the /linkresource: switch. Does anyone know a way if linking resources at compile using the VS Net IDE? I can only find 'Embedded Resource' in the Build Action property dropdown.