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

Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and mod

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility and modularity
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:19:18 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: Message from Mike Champion <mc@x...> of "Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:10:00 EDT." <oproakays9ezizxn@s...>
• Sender: uche.ogbuji@f...

> > I do regret that there is not enough body of best practice on how to use 
> > RDF so well out there.  I have no time to do it: it really needs the sort 
> > of tireless work that Costello applied for WXS.
> 
> Yes.  There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here.  You're too busy 
> Just Doing It to explain it to the skeptics. I understand that.

Actuall if I had all the time in the world I would probably not be interested 
in explaining it to the skeptics.  Wot, you think I'm a masochist?  My 
audience would be more the mildly interested or newbies who want to see how 
best to get started playing in the sndbox.  As it is, I've written a ot of 
that: in ailing lists, n blogs, in articles, etc.  I just don't have time to 
collate it all, as Costello so conscienciously did.

As for the skeptics.  Go on with your bad selves.  We can find other things to 
agree on, I expect.



> > My argument against RSS 0.92 has always been that is is *bad XML*, 
> > regardless  of whether or not it uses RDF.  After all, I have no problem 
> > extracting RDF from good XML.
> 
> Hmm, I'm reminded once again (as I seem to be reminded a lot lately!) of 
> the Metacrap article.  The people who can make use of information produced 
> by the "lying, lazy, stupid, non-selfware" masses are going to beat those 
> who require quality data inputs every time out there in mass markets.

So you're never going to ever spend time trying to lead people towards better 
markup practices?  Well, suit yourself.  I make a living getting people to do 
things rightly (by my biases).  SO I think your point lies outside my sphere 
of interest or understanding.


> > As for RDBMS.  It's another point that is not as simplistic as its 
> > attendant flames.  For some classes of data modeled in RDF, RDBMS is 
> > fine.  In other cases, it's a curse (especially when you have a lot of N- 
> > ary or transitive relationships, which are common in real life).  This is 
> > an old problem with RDBMS, and is simply an illustration that no model is 
> > ideal for all data, despite the claims of relational purists.
> 
> Absolutely!  That's probably why I keep annoying you to help me understand 
> what RDF is best for and how to recognize and exploit those opportunities.  
> I think I have a good handle on RDBMS and XML use cases, I'm struggling 
> with RDF (and somewhat put off by the purists), but there are enough people 
> that I greatly respect who are making use of it that I'm trying very hard 
> to keep my mind open.

OK.  I'm trying to matter of fact here, and not overly nasty (because I've 
said this more testily before when you did truly annoy me on the matter).  I 
think I've already explained to you everything I could that would possibly 
enable you to appreciate my support and heavy use of RDF.  I think that at the 
end of it all, we both just see the situations differently, and there is 
nothing I can say that will cure you of your skepticism.  This is all fine, 
and so I wish you'd just leave it at that and not keep writing notes like the 
above that seem to pretend that I have not already expounded on all this in 
reams of material and personal exchanges.


>  Back to the original article, I do agree that "Sam" 
> could benefit from some basic RDF knowledge and tools in his reperoire, but 
> that "Kerry" needs to quit chanting the mantra "RDF is the solution, what's 
> your problem?".

Well, I'm glad I'm not Kerry.  Of course, as I've ponted out before that a lot 
of people also believe that Cheryl, XML evangelist is also going around 
annoying people with "XML is the solution, what's your problem?".

I don't see just jabs as a productive ways to argue the actual merits of any 
technology.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Gems From the [Python/XML] Archives - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/09/py-xml.html
Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think17/index.html
Use internal references in XML vocabularies - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipvocab.html
EXSLT by example - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-exslt.html
The worry about program wizards - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7238
Use rdf:about and rdf:ID effectively in RDF/XML - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tiprdfai.html

• References:
  • Re: ANN: Article on using RDF to provide extensibility andmodularity
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

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