W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: A rant about the terminology debate

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:18:24 -0400
Message-ID: <503E0890.2040009@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 8/28/12 12:25 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> The RDBMS community is the best friend (ultimately) of RDF.
>
> The Web 2.0 will always switch off once the encounter the letters R-D-F.
>
> Warning: on this particular issue my rant stamina is endless :-) 
Meant to say:

The RDBMS community is the best friend (ultimately) of RDF [1].

The Web 2.0 *community* and *developer profile* will always switch off 
once *they* encounter the letters R-D-F. Thus, appeasing this community 
is eternally futile when the communications payload contains the letters 
R-D-F.

Sandro:

The link below is good source of material for addressing the terminology 
challenges that you are concerned about, one that I believe is 
ultimately addressed by terminology reconciliation and stronger "RDBMS 
and RDF are inevitably best of friends" style narratives.

For instance, note how a Table and Document are aligned. Basically, an 
RDBMS has Tables which RDF has documents re., g-box. As for the g-snap, 
it lives in the same place as RDBMS sets, there's no hardcore difference 
across the realms bar nature of tuples i.e., 3-tuples vs n-tuples.

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/NC1yaP -- deconstructing the database presentation 
(provides nice segue between RDBMS and RDF)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:18:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC