[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
> >but RDF gets hard fast. That's because the problems that RDF can be
> >used to solve might be very tricky problems. It's not that RDF
> >*itself* is so complicated, it's that its problem domain (e.g.
> >unstructured databases or "knowledge representation") is complicated.
>
> I don't think the problem is as simple as "what RDF does is hard."
>
> For me, the problem with RDF is the demands it places on me for keeping
> track of the structures described. Invariably, when I look at
> information stored in RDF (or a Topic Map) in a graphical form, the
> connections make sense, the overall structure or lack thereof is very
> clear. When I look at the same information in its raw RDF document
> form, I start to mutter about people who are too damn smart creating
> models which are suitable only for computers and people who can think
> like computers.
Sorry, I was refering to RDF itself, as opposed to RDF/XML. the much
maligned XML serialization syntax.
...
>
> I don't think the RDF community has ever really understood that what
> they do is genuinely difficult for most people. The RDF community seems
> very self-selecting to me - those who can cope with RDF like it, and the
> rest of us keep our distance. I'm not sure it's ever been clear to
> people who find RDF intuitive why so many people bounce off of it
> completely, and I'm not convinced that it's possible to explain that to
> someone who genuinely likes RDF.
Do you mean RDF/XML as a syntax is difficult, or what goes on after the
RDF/XML syntax is transformed into a set of triples being hard? I fully
agree that if the problem is that lack of a clearcut relationship between
syntax and triples, then by all means change the RDF/XML syntax. Indeed many
RDF folks have essentially abandonded RDF/XML itself for N3/N-triples.
>
> I guess we'll see if this message generates the usual "but you're wrong
> about RDF it's so simple and clear" messages that previous efforts to
> state the same thesis have garnered.
>
No, I'm just trying to be clear about which parts of RDF are simple, which
parts are genuinely hard, and which parts are just confusing.
Jonathan
http://www.jonathanborden-md.com
http://www.erieneurosurgery.com
http://www.openhealth.org
|
