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

[Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>]

Vilya Harvey wrote:
> 
> 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.

Currently, my main / only problem for using RDF as object 
serialization format is: Even if you can compare RDF to Java 
(or Delphi) interfaces, you cannot generate a consistent 
RDF schema producing readable RDF from two interfaces 
(or classes) automatically, if both interfaces are 
in the same namespace (package) having a common property 
name with different types. 

In RDF schema, property names are global. In OOP, object 
properties are local to the defining class/interface.  
Thus, I would need to add the class name to the property
name in order to avoid possible problems with name 
conflicst. I also could assign a new namespace to each 
interface or class. But both alternatives make the RDF 
code very ugly...

Best regards

Stefan
-- 
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de

***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************