[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> 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
I've wondered for years about the analogy between RDF and the
binary-relational model (cf
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm) in which everything is
modeled as two entities with a relationship between them There's also
variants such as the Associative Model of Data
http://www.lazysoft.com/resources_downloads.htm
As Dare implies, there has got to be some sort of mapping between the
abstraction of triples / binary relations and actual application data.
Of course that's true with raw XML or the n-ary relational model, but
triples seem to be a pretty abstract abstraction, and it sounds like
this is one reason why the binary relational approach hasn't taken off.
I just wonder whether RDF advocates are aware of these other
triples-like approaches, what they think they've learned from them, or
whether they think the analogy is misleading?
|
