A few responses to my Legacy RDF post.
Firstly:
What this suggests to me is that in the world of open-source software, a world where everything is free, it’s not necessarily the technology that is most important: instead, the community is key.
http://boakes.org/feel-the-community#more-446
I agree with this to some extent. However, there is not doubt that the RDF community is strong and full of very smart people. I think that the RDF community == the MIT/Stanford style of design. That isn't a bad thing, but I think history is repeating itself.
Secondly:
Next time you see someone questioning RDF (once you’re sure they know what they’re talking about ;-), just look and see if they assume that fans of RDF don’t know about XML and other markup, relational databases, worse-is-better arguments and so on. Most of the people I know that are using RDF are doing so because it's a better fit to the task, generally after they've considered the alternatives. That's better as in better, not worse.
I have some doubts with this one. I was on the mailing list when RSS 1.0 was defined. Making that RDF was a mistake.
Finally:
If I was coming to RDF new, I'd be reading this stuff and going “oh, well, even if RDF's great, I'll never be able to get any support from the community, they sound like real nutcases. I'd better use OPML instead.”
Oh dear.. I don't want to get into the whole W3C vs DaveLab thing ;)