Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, ite
 On Jun 3, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Joshua Allen wrote: > > Well, the big difference is that RDF is a "triples" data model, while > XML is hierarchy. Setting aside the issues of how you *serialize* the > triples, it's inevitable that "triples" will win in these "semantic" > scenarios. OSAF Chandler is based on "triples", as is Longhorn's > WinFS. > Both are essentially "personal semantic web stores". Triples+URIs is > how you bootstrap the "personal semantic web store" and make it > universal. > I don't know about that "inevitable" part -- the triples model is more or less the binary relational data model, which has been around a long time and has not exactly set the world on fire. C. J. Date commented on this recently at http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm Well, actually some anonymous person "RM" gets in the best lick: 'In many cases, however, binary is wrong and does not represent the world of discourse in which we do our thinking and understanding. If I'm wrong then I'll start all introductions as, "This is Matt. Matt has a last name. That last name is Brown. Matt has a middle name... If a data model forces us to record information in a format more difficult to use than human language then perhaps it is not a good choice" ' That may or may not be overcome by all the UIs that will support WinFS in Longhorn, or OWL's more human-friendly but reducible-to-triples syntax, we shall see. Likewise we shall see whether the whole paradigm of reducing information to, uhh, syllogisms (dipping toe in a pool of flame that Cory Doctrow created!) is going to be fruitful outside some limited domains, such as the one I referred to earlier: In an enterprise information system, you NEED to do exactly what the triples model enables, e.g. relate a customer information "resource" to an account status resource in a completely rigorous way (and irrespective of whether the "resources" are in an RDBMS, XML text file, web service invocation, or whatever). I'm all for applying the semantic web paradigm where it fits well, and information integration of divers information sources that are individually well defined seems to be one of them. On the open web, or in a personal information system, I'm not so sure -- recall that the previous thread *immediately* turned to analogy rather than formal logic, i.e. the question of whether Google is to the Semantic Web as the Web is to Compuserve, or maybe as Cleveland is to Xanadu. Intriguingly, the analogy works whether "Xanadu" refers to Kubla Khan's fictional pleasuredome or to Ted Nelson's hypothetical hypertext web!!! If that doesn't shake one's faith in triples, I don't now what will :-) p.s. - Given the prevalence of analogy over logic in real human thought and discourse, does anyone know whether formal ontologies can effectively represent analogies? Hmml, Google finds http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/IAAI02KForbus.pdf ... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
