[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Linda Grimaldi wrote:
> I admire your single-mindedness and certainty about the universe- I just
> don't share it. I'm working on a project now that might use an
> RDF-based ontology for a repository application, and, I think it just
> might work pretty neatly.
>
> It's a well-understood domain that has had a number of accretions over
> 35 years, with lots of variants on what things are called and how they
> are used. I find RDF quite handy for that. XML in and of itself (with
> XSLT) would just require me to write a bijillion (that's a precise
> number, by the way) individual transforms, even with a star architecture
> approach.
XML in and of itself doesn't do anything insofar as it doesn't mean
anything (even with XSLT ;) . RDF means something in and of itself
(not enough according to some, but nontheless it does). What you
could be comparing to the RDF approach is the the evaluator(s) you'd
have to write for the ad-hoc domain language you'd have to invent
(that you'd incidentally happened to inscribe in XML). In that sense
I think RDF can be a win - as much as anything that gets business
logic out of systems programming languages can be.
Bill de hÓra
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com
|
