[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:02:46AM -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 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. :-)
> >
>
> Right, that is just plain wrong. RDF itself is hardly a standardized
> database schema. That is akin to saying that since all database schemas
> are written down on paper as a sequence of characters, that Unicode is
> a standardized database scheme.
>
> What Mark is trying to say [...]
No, I think I said what I meant. It was an analogy. I'm not saying
that RDF *is* a standardized database schema, I'm saying that choosing
RDF is *analogous* to choosing one in the sense that the architectural
properties that are induced are very similar (see my last response to
Elliotte).
Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
|
