RDF Nonsense

I thought Sean's article was a good glancing blow, but Danny and Uche apparently don't think so.  They are too busy defending RDF to realize that people like Sean are smart experienced experts whose criticisms should be carefully examined like rocks from a jade mine instead of focusing on flaws.

Sjoerd Visscher + Danny Ayers on the RDF article. Sjoerd says exactly what I was trying to say in the article. He points at Danny Ayers (and Uches) comments that are both worth a read.
I'm not anti-RDF, I'm anti "in-your-face" RDF. Thats a very different thing. Its why I like the idea of semantic shadows I explained in the article.  [Sean McGrath, CTO, Propylon]

I, like Sean, like the ideas behind Semantic Web and understand the benefits of RDF.  What I don't like is people claiming that Semantic Web is the Next Big Thing and that everyone will be using RDF eventually.  "In-You-Face" RDF, as Sean calls it, is what disgusts me.

When you put a typical XML fragment next to an RDF fragment, most people grok the XML fragment because, like a list of groceries, there is almost nothing to understand.  RDF fragment, on the other hand, requires some efforts to map from XML syntax to a mental model.  Without understanding the RDF model, its much harder.  Directed graph is easy enough to understand on a piece of paper.  A large directed graph in your head or in textual form is quite another beast.

You can't expect average web developers to use RDF without understanding it.  Yes, tools can ease the pain.  Tools also obfuscate and separate the user from the data.  Danny and Uche only sees the benefits of RDF, while people like Sean and I see disadvantages as well and recommends more judicial use of RDF.