> RDF as a moniker is an unfortunate conflation of:
>
> 1. Data Model - EAV enhanced with URIs plus explicit semantics for
> typed literals and language tags .
>
> 2. A number of data representation syntaxes and across-the-wire
> serialization formats.
>
> With the above in mind, there is not broken genealogy re. LISP and
> other critical pieces of this innovation continuum re. structured data
> representation. Thus, we have to try to speak in clearer terms about RDF.

Those are useful comments about the underlying technology. But my main
complaint about the SW is not about Tim B-L's vision in 1994. 

> a significant number of folks will still interpret [RDF] as a statement
> about RDF/XML syntax rather than an exploitation of the RDF Data Model.

Both the syntax and the data model were premature optimizations that
should never have been considered until *after* the W3C had some idea
of what problem they were trying to solve.