Re: RDF necessary to SW? - was Issues with XML and Semantic We
Mike, On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:15:28AM -0500, Michael Champion wrote: > That has a couple of advantages: the extreme ugliness of RDF syntax > is not a problem for very many people, and there is a plausible > evolutionary path from the world of today to the vision for tomorrow. > After all, any domain that is well defined and stable enough to be > even plausibly managed with hard coded relationships is obviously well > defined and stable enough to be modeled with an ontology. Using > semantic technology improves the ability to accommodate change and > diversity, using an explicit model in a single language rather than > multiple implicit models in various programming and database > languages. Furthermore, one can use conventional RDBMS and XML > technology (and conventional application code) to manage all the data > and existing metadata, the only information that potentially would be > managed with exotic triple stores and new query languages is the > ontology itself. > > Anyone want to point out flaws in this assessment? If by "conventional [...] XML technology" you mean that, say, RDF/XML data won't be exchanged between parties, then I'd suggest that's a flaw. You need RDF (or something like it) or else every time you deploy a new schema, you'll also need to deploy new software to enable applications to extract the ontology information from instances of that schema. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format