[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why RDF is hard
jonathan@o... (Jonathan Borden) writes: >Nah, the concept of triples and directed labelled graphs (DLGs) is >really pretty basic -- but it's not one that is useful to all problem >domains by any stretch. Either it is useful to you or not -- simple as >that. Now DLGs certainly aren't the most basic type of math but the >idea of functions which take one argument and have a value (which >essentially is what triples represent) is pretty basic. .... As I noted earlier, explaining the complexity of this approach to those who are already comfortable with it is consistently but annoyingly difficult. >That's sort of like saying that you don't think in terms of algebra -- >which is probably true. The point is, that unless the problem you are >trying to solve is a good fit for a graph type of analysis, then there >is no reason to "think in terms of triples". I don't think in terms of >triples either, any more than I think in terms of characters, or think >in terms of lists, or arrays etc. Keep your triples out of my XML - or make them invisible, which you've done nicely this weekend - and there won't be a problem. Pour any more URIs or triples into what we already have, and you'll be way past "a good fit", stripping screw threads out for the rest of us. QNames are already a catastrophe. RDDL's structure is on the edge of tolerable. Please don't push it further. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
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
|