[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 12:53 PM -0400 6/11/04, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>> So the value add of RDF/XML over vanilla XML is the same as the value
>> add of having a standardized database schema over the alternative of
>> not having one.
>
>
> I'd call that a value-subtract. If that really is all there is to RDF,
> then RDF is fundamentally, absolutely broken and actively harmful. I
> cannot imagine working with a single database schema for all my needs,
> much less all of everyone else's. If that's really what RDF is shooting
> for, then I have to conclude that RDF is evil and should be actively
> opposed. But just maybe, that's not really what RDF's trying to do, and
> it's not so evil. :-)
It's "all there is" in the same way that tables and foreign keys are
"all there is" to relational databases, or that elements and attributes
are "all there is" to xml. In practice there will be characteristic
structures, and relationships and constraints that may be declared in
(e.g., rdfs or owl) schemas, so there can be all the richness and depth
you might want.
--
Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
|
