[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:50:41 +0100, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:32:46 -0500, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > To echo a previous comment, it seems to me you're largely (if not
> > entirely: I haven't been following this that closely) reinventing RDF,
> > with somewhat different syntax.
>
> Quite. Having RDF reinvented many times in the same thread takes
> xml-dev to a whole new plateau...
We're certainly aware of a very close coupling from what we have to
and from RDF. However, RDF isn't exactly something you can explain to
a business analyst in 10 minutes and expect them to understand.
<addess>
<addr1 type="String"/>
<addr2 type="String/>
...
they catch onto immediately. Do they need to model in XML? No, they
have no clue they are modelling in XML Thtat's why:
<collection name="Address">
<object name="Addr1"/>
...
works even better. As I said previously, take the model and map it
straight to XML, we all know how to do the transforms to turn it into
RDF after that, if needed. It's just that they aren't needed; RDF
doesn't buy us anything.
Maybe someday RDF will do something special for us. I've been
expecting it to for 5 years, ever since I first encountered RDF trying
to exchange music data between a certain now defunct Internet music
retailer and it's music data supplier. The concept is great, the
reality is, syntax really doesn't matter __if you're careful___.
--
Peter Hunsberger
(Off to correct my previous post that implied the opposite).
|
