[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: On frank discussions of RDF, AI, "The Semantic Web", OLAP, et c.

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: uche.ogbuji@f...
• Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:37:02 -0500

I am snipping heavily to keep this toward the 
technical debate about the applicability of 
RDF technologies to the services framework. 
I mention that other technologies might provide 
the same services not to debunk RDF or to promote 
OLAP or relational systems, but to point out that 
we may have multiple means here and that to chase 
or specify one without regard to these alternatives 
can lead to a less coherent standardization of means 
at the time where a standard becomes useful.

So far, you are saying that this approach is easier 
and cheaper because it is extensible and flexible 
given that the structure is less rigorous and that 
results in cost savings.

Good points.  Do others who use RDF agree?

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: uche.ogbuji@f... [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

we use RDF in closed space alone, where we control URIs, data-streams, 
and process. 

You ask what RDF lends us that existing relational processing doesn't.  I
already mentioned that it is the extensibility and the flexibility
accorded by less rigorous structure.  In the sort of applications we
build, these things do save the clients time and money. 

• Prev by Date: RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
• Next by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: On frank discussions of RDF, AI, "The Semantic Web", OLAP, etc.
• Next by thread: RE: Description of Semantic Web (was Re: Is it just me...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread