RDF is hardly ubiquitous, but it's also hardly appropriate to say that it's nowhere. RDFa in particular has seen a big surge in adoption over the last year or two, especially after Google and Yahoo announced that they would start utilizing RDFa.
In theory they are semantically equivalent (usually anyway) so the question is, is RDFa particularly awkward. I guess it depends on how you define awkward.
Comments
APIs are everywhere, and RDF is nowhere.
RDF is hardly ubiquitous, but it's also hardly appropriate to say that it's nowhere. RDFa in particular has seen a big surge in adoption over the last year or two, especially after Google and Yahoo announced that they would start utilizing RDFa.
http://tripletalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/rdfa-deployment-a...
To continue to play devil's advocate here ... if RDF is just an awkward API, RDFa is just an awkward microformat.
More specifically, it is an extensible microformat. Microformats are practically a subset of RDFa with locked-down ontologies (hCard, hCalendar etc).
In theory they are semantically equivalent (usually anyway) so the question is, is RDFa particularly awkward. I guess it depends on how you define awkward.
#2
there are also more and more RDF datasets (http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/lodcloud/) published, so at least some people seem to think it is a good format.