[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
>Nah, the concept of triples and directed labelled graphs (DLGs) is
>really pretty basic -- but it's not one that is useful to all problem
>domains by any stretch. Either it is useful to you or not -- simple as
>that. Now DLGs certainly aren't the most basic type of math but the
>idea of functions which take one argument and have a value (which
>essentially is what triples represent) is pretty basic. ....
As I noted earlier, explaining the complexity of this approach to those
who are already comfortable with it is consistently but annoyingly
difficult.
>That's sort of like saying that you don't think in terms of algebra --
>which is probably true. The point is, that unless the problem you are
>trying to solve is a good fit for a graph type of analysis, then there
>is no reason to "think in terms of triples". I don't think in terms of
>triples either, any more than I think in terms of characters, or think
>in terms of lists, or arrays etc.
Keep your triples out of my XML - or make them invisible, which you've
done nicely this weekend - and there won't be a problem. Pour any more
URIs or triples into what we already have, and you'll be way past "a
good fit", stripping screw threads out for the rest of us.
QNames are already a catastrophe. RDDL's structure is on the edge of
tolerable. Please don't push it further.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
