[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:55:00 -0600, Peter Hunsberger
<peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I don't know - "...you have a model built of resources (which
correspond to things) and relationships between those resources..."
> <addess>
> <addr1 type="String"/>
> <addr2 type="String/>
> ...
> they catch onto immeaditely. 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,
You say "take the model" - how was that model arrived at? I would
suggest that some kind of entity-relationship analysis is useful in
the development of the vocabulary. Given that RDF offers an
entity-relationship model that has expression(s) in XML syntax, it has
the potential to be a time-saver.
> Maybe someday RDF will do something special for us.
A large proportion of the practical applications I've seen haven't
involved RDF doing "something special", rather something very ordinary
in a consistent, Web-friendly fashion.
This developer story goes something like: "The data was too irregular
for a relational DB so we put it XML. Soon after we started having
problems because our data didn't fit into a hierarchical structure
very well either..."
(On your points re. syntax not mattering etc, agreed 100%)
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
|
