OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RDF necessary to SW? - was Issues with XML and Semantic We

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:15:28AM -0500, Michael Champion wrote:
> That has a couple of advantages:  the extreme ugliness of RDF syntax
> is not a problem for very many people, and there is a plausible
> evolutionary path from the world of today to the vision for tomorrow. 
> After all, any domain that is well defined and stable enough to be
> even plausibly managed with hard coded relationships is obviously well
> defined and stable enough to be modeled with an ontology.  Using
> semantic technology improves the ability to accommodate change and
> diversity, using an explicit model in a single language rather than
> multiple implicit models in various programming and database
> languages.  Furthermore, one can use conventional RDBMS and XML
> technology (and conventional application code) to manage all the data
> and existing metadata, the only information that potentially would  be
> managed with exotic triple stores and  new query languages is the
> ontology itself.
> Anyone want to point out  flaws in this assessment?

If by "conventional [...] XML technology" you mean that, say, RDF/XML
data won't be exchanged between parties, then I'd suggest that's a flaw.
You need RDF (or something like it) or else every time you deploy a new
schema, you'll also need to deploy new software to enable applications
to extract the ontology information from instances of that schema.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS