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

Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: SemanticWeb per

• To: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Subject: Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: SemanticWeb permathread, iteration n+1
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:29:40 -0400
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <20040604011601.GE668@m...>
• References: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E520200A01B@R...> <1262C5E0-B5A3-11D8-ABF1-000A95CCC59E@x...><20040604011601.GE668@m...>

At 9:16 PM -0400 6/3/04, Mark Baker wrote:

>I agree, it's not the triples themselves which are key.  I believe that
>what's key is a data model which presents information in discrete
>"packets" so that I can, for example, add a new packet without impacting
>the ability of deployed software to extract other packets.  Triples do
>that, but so can other models.  So, in response to Elliotte, this is
>why vanilla XML (+Namespaces+URIs) isn't sufficient.

I was with you until the last sentence. I see no reason why 
plain-vanilla XML+Namespaces can't do this. You make the claim on 
http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/2003/10/09/#2003-10-rdf-and-xml 
that " additional properties can be added without impacting the 
meaning of the former interpretation, i.e. potentially breaking some 
application somewhere. An XML app can't assume this; it might be 
breaking its validity against some schema someplace." Simply put, I 
don't care if adding additional information breaks some schema 
someplace. Properly designed XML applications ask whether a document 
contains the information need. They do not ask whether the document 
contains additional information they don't need or care about. I 
agree that XML document should be Extensible.  I disagree that plain 
vanilla XML documents aren't extensible. Validity is not required.

-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml            
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The triples datamodel
    • From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
  • Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
  • RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: "Howard Katz" <howardk@f...>
  • Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
  • The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Bruce Perens and yet more patents
• Next by Date: Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Previous by thread: Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Next by thread: Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread