Re: [xml-dev] The triples datamodel -- was Re: [xml-dev] Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>]

At 10:50 AM -0700 6/6/04, Robert Koberg wrote:


>So you had a contract with the client. The client did not stick to 
>the contract and you had to do a great deal of work to make your end 
>work. If it was me, I would say to the client that you have to 
>simply conform to the schema that we agreed to, otherwise we have to 
>do a great deal more work and we will have to charge for all this 
>work.

No. This is not true. Thomas was quite clear that they do not have a 
contract with their data supplier, in this case a government agency. 
They are receiving critical data from this agency, but they have no 
contract with it and and no ability to tell them what to do or charge 
them for anything. Possibly they have a contract with a downstream 
client, but their upstream information provider is in no way under 
their control or influence, contractual or otherwise.

This is the world we have to deal with. This is the world envisioned 
by the semantic web. We exchange information without contracts or 
agreements. Some people say we should do this with RDF. Some people 
think plain XML will suffice. But the old style model of contracting, 
negotiating, and/or agreeing to everything in advance has hit its 
limits. The complexity of prenegotiating data formats is at least 
linear in the number of parties who have to communicate, with a big 
hefty constant multiplier provided by your friendly lawyers. This 
model is as outmoded as subscribing to every magazine and newspaper 
you want to read and having a stack of dead trees dropped your 
doorstep each morning.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@metalab.unc.edu
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA