xml-dev - Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem

[Vilya Harvey <vilya@nag.co.uk>]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > I agree, but I'd take it much further -- I find that the people I work
> > with (many of them software developers, granted) find the RDF model
> > terribly confusing, but light bulbs go on when I tell them to compare
> > a Java interface
...
> But it isn't really. The Java you gave defines the extent of the object.
> By that I mean that base classes aside, the entirety of the class is
> defined by the code you gave. I could say from your code, that there is
> a class called Person that is defined by having these - and only these -
> properties.

Just a minor point, but I think you've misunderstood what David said in
his post: he was talking about a Java *interface*, not a Java *class*. An
interface in Java has exactly the characteristics of RDF that you describe
in the rest of your post (essentially the ability to have multiple views
of the system object). The only obvious difference is that in Java the
allowable views of an object are specified by the object, meaning there
are a fixed number of views that the object, whereas there doesn't seem to
be that restriction in RDF. I think the analogy still holds, though.

As an aside, speaking as an RDF novice, the analogy to Java interfaces did
make RDF rather clearer to me - thanks! :-)

Vil.
-- 
Vilya Harvey  <vilya@nag.co.uk>    Wilkinson House  Mob: +44  961 106 505
Computational Mathematics Group   Jordan Hill Road   Wk: +44 1865 511 245
NAG Limited                    Oxford  UK  OX2 8DR  Fax: +44 1865 311 205

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************