Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 2:44 AM +0100 6/9/04, Bill de hÓra wrote:
>> As a down to earth example I tend more and more to generate logs
>> designed to be loaded up as RDF triples. This is extrememly useful
>> for systems management, server operations and message tracking or
>> anything which doesn't (and shouldn't, and simply can't) care about
>> the details of a plethora application suites, grammars, log formats,
>> protocols, server toplogies, data-centers and so on, but do have to
>> care about finding out what's the heck is going on. And no, you can't
>> do this with XML+Namespaces+HTTP, not to the same extent and at the
>> same cost.
> Why not? What does the RDF buy you here?
Much the same thing a database would, or a program would. Structured
relations and uniform evaluation.
> Log file are relatively easy
> for plain vanilla XML to handle.
That's the point - plain vanilla XML doesn't handle anything - it's
The problem with your position is that you're doing something along
the lines of comparing Lisp to Sexprs and asking, what does Lisp buy
me? You're not taking in account the code that needs to impute
meaning into the Sexpr in the absence of a Lisp evaluator. I don't
think the thoughts expressed by you since WWW 2004 are wrong by the
way, just that you're arguing from a position that has little merit.
The problem with the polar opposite (and equally merit free
position), SemWeb as AI, is that there is no problem that cannot be
solved by yet another macro or little language or another model
theory. As I implied elsewhere, the debate here is too polarized to
be useful; invariably everyone ends restating their positions. But
that's why it's a permathread.