[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: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The triples datamodel -- was Re: SemanticWeb permathread, iteration n+1
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:09:56 -0400
• In-reply-to: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOKEAAEMAA.howardk@f...>
• References: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOKEAAEMAA.howardk@f...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)

Howard Katz wrote:

> I don't understand this last point, Elliotte. How can a properly designed
> application ask whether a document contains the information it needs without
> knowing about the document's structure? If you add information, you're most
> likely changing the structure, and consequently the schema. How can an
> application cope with ad hoc changes like that w/out looking at the schema,
> ie without doing validation?

It's not hard if the added information is in the form of additional 
child elements or additional attributes to existing elements.  When you 
ask for the specific child elements that you want, you simply will not 
get the new ones.

Of course, if you go rearranging the basic containment structure, it's a 
different ball game.

RDF is the ultimate along these lines - though not the xml/rdf syntax - 
  because there is really only one structure, so there is never anything 
to rearrange.

At least, that is the argument.  I think that it is true in a somewhat 
superficial sense.  I think that a lot of real-world complex RDF will 
make use of what I tend to call "idioms" - these are particular 
groupings that will be found repeatedly.  For example, if you translate 
a set of relational tables to RDF you will get repeated and 
characteristic structures (or subgraphs).  These are the idioms. 
Processors will probably need to understand the idioms in use to get the 
most out of these rdf data sets.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
    • From: "Howard Katz" <howardk@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• Next by Date: RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• Previous by thread: RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Next by thread: RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: SemanticWeb permathread, iteration n+1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread