• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility andmodularity
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:23:54 -0400
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F805C1F8DF@R...><1538500359.20030426153727@i...>

[Ian Davis]

> On Friday, 25 April 2003 at 01:54, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > Or he could just define a mapping between the input XML and his
> > relational tables using a number of XML mapping technologies that target
> > his database of choice. For instance if he was a user Microsoft's SQL
> > Server 2000 this could easily be handled by SQLXML
> > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/sqlxml).
> This is the point of the article though: every different schema has a
> different mapping which is fine until they start being refined and
> refactored over time. Schema mapping works well for static xml, but
> isn't suited to extensible, modular xml.
>

RDF can be a good mapping mechanism, but the mapping itself has the same
benefits and issues no matter whether you use RDF, Topic maps, or some
home-grown mapping method possibly using xml.  Using a standard can give you
some advantages - standard tools and the possibility that someone else can
use your mapping - but does not really change the essential task.



Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and modularity
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and modularity
    • From: Ian Davis <iand@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and modularity
• Next by Date: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and modularity
• Next by thread: Public Identifiers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread