Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?

On 7 Aug 2012, at 20:34, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello henry.
> 
> On 2012-08-07 16:38 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> But you can map all these to relations. Show us one that can't!
> 
> yes you can map all these to relations. in the same way as you can map
> everything to trees. or in the same way as you can map everything to
> relational tables. like i said, you can map anything to anything, but this
> does not prove anything. it just means that with enough energy, mapping
> rules can always be defined. i just don't see how this tells us anything
> about the metamodels.

I made it clear that this is not about the metamodels. It's about the naming.

It's as Kingsely says, deceptivley simple. It's so simple that most people will not even bother looking that way. They would get bored to death before they understood the problem. It's nearly invisible, and yet it is what constitutes the web.

So RDF is a model that takes that naming into account and that is standardised and used on the web. Take any other metamodel that maps to relational models. You would need to add URIs to that model to make it useful for us. 

But as you agree that that model can be mapped to RDF, you might as well have saved you some trouble and invention by mapping the model directly to RDF to start with. Then you won't have to deal with the naming issues, ....

Henry

> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 18:43:13 UTC