Hmm, seems I riled some folks up about RDF and didn’t even know it (until someone sent me a link today — too bad I wasn’t linked to in the original post). Anyway, I started to write a semi-long, semi-polite response to Shelley Powers, author of Practical RDF, in response to her blog entry titled Frustrating (which was in response to my discussion with Leigh Dodds), but I’ve changed my mind. I’ve already spent way too much time talking about RDF.

I’m happy to concede that the complexity of RDF is like the complexity of the English language. Ms. Powers asks how long I’ve had trouble with the English language? I don’t have too much now but, of course, I’m a native speaker. I’d ask Ms. Powers how long it took her to learn the English language (with all its complexity). I just don’t have that much time to devote to learning RDF inside and out. If I want to put in that sort of commitment I’ll learn Chinese (which will be much more useful in the future in my humble opinion).

Yes, I agree, Ms. Powers, our time will be better spent solving problems rather than going back and forth about whether I should use RDF or not. The people who believe there is something there to justify the initial investment will use it, the rest will not. All I’m saying is I’m happy to take a wait and see approach. As you suggest, there is no need to try and convince me RDF will save the world. I’ll continue to work on what I think is worth my time and effort and RDF folks should do the same.