[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:37:02 -0500
I am snipping heavily to keep this toward the
technical debate about the applicability of
RDF technologies to the services framework.
I mention that other technologies might provide
the same services not to debunk RDF or to promote
OLAP or relational systems, but to point out that
we may have multiple means here and that to chase
or specify one without regard to these alternatives
can lead to a less coherent standardization of means
at the time where a standard becomes useful.
So far, you are saying that this approach is easier
and cheaper because it is extensible and flexible
given that the structure is less rigorous and that
results in cost savings.
Good points. Do others who use RDF agree?
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
we use RDF in closed space alone, where we control URIs, data-streams,
and process.
You ask what RDF lends us that existing relational processing doesn't. I
already mentioned that it is the extensibility and the flexibility
accorded by less rigorous structure. In the sort of applications we
build, these things do save the clients time and money.
|
