[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike,
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.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
|
