[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jun 3, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Joshua Allen wrote:
>
> Well, the big difference is that RDF is a "triples" data model, while
> XML is hierarchy. Setting aside the issues of how you *serialize* the
> triples, it's inevitable that "triples" will win in these "semantic"
> scenarios. OSAF Chandler is based on "triples", as is Longhorn's
> WinFS.
> Both are essentially "personal semantic web stores". Triples+URIs is
> how you bootstrap the "personal semantic web store" and make it
> universal.
>
I don't know about that "inevitable" part -- the triples model is more
or less the binary relational data model, which has been around a long
time and has not exactly set the world on fire. C. J. Date commented
on this recently at http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm
Well, actually some anonymous person "RM" gets in the best lick: 'In
many cases, however, binary is wrong and does not represent the world
of discourse in which we do our thinking and understanding. If I'm
wrong then I'll start all introductions as, "This is Matt. Matt has a
last name. That last name is Brown. Matt has a middle name... If a
data model forces us to record information in a format more difficult
to use than human language then perhaps it is not a good choice" '
That may or may not be overcome by all the UIs that will support WinFS
in Longhorn, or OWL's more human-friendly but reducible-to-triples
syntax, we shall see. Likewise we shall see whether the whole
paradigm of reducing information to, uhh, syllogisms (dipping toe in a
pool of flame that Cory Doctrow created!) is going to be fruitful
outside some limited domains, such as the one I referred to earlier:
In an enterprise information system, you NEED to do exactly what the
triples model enables, e.g. relate a customer information "resource" to
an account status resource in a completely rigorous way (and
irrespective of whether the "resources" are in an RDBMS, XML text file,
web service invocation, or whatever). I'm all for applying the
semantic web paradigm where it fits well, and information integration
of divers information sources that are individually well defined seems
to be one of them.
On the open web, or in a personal information system, I'm not so sure
-- recall that the previous thread *immediately* turned to analogy
rather than formal logic, i.e. the question of whether Google is to the
Semantic Web as the Web is to Compuserve, or maybe as Cleveland is to
Xanadu. Intriguingly, the analogy works whether "Xanadu" refers to
Kubla Khan's fictional pleasuredome or to Ted Nelson's hypothetical
hypertext web!!! If that doesn't shake one's faith in triples, I don't
now what will :-)
p.s. - Given the prevalence of analogy over logic in real human
thought and discourse, does anyone know whether formal ontologies can
effectively represent analogies? Hmml, Google finds
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/IAAI02KForbus.pdf ...
|
