On 6/19/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/19/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > 1. should the information be public? Yes. > > 2. should the information be machine readable? > Not at the expense of making it hard for humans to maintain it. If > you can't make sense of the format in 10 seconds or less, then it's > unlikely to get much attention. -- justin
they don't get much attention now even though they are in loosely structured formats :-/ +1 (though not saying rdf is incomprehensible, haven't looked at it
much yet, thought the premise warrants support on its own :-)
cost of maintenance is a more complex issue than just format this information needs to be available in several different formats for different purposes. free text is the easiest format to understand but is not necessarily the easiest to maintain. if the price of unstructured text is maintaining multiple documents then this may be most costly than using a structured format. - robert
