Re: Fwd: Re: What should we call RDF's ability to allow multiple models to peacefully coexist, interconnected?

Attached is a better one.

On 03/07/2014 01:50 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Illustration attached, so that I can refer to it in my reply
> explanation.  I'll reply on the semantic-web@w3.org list.
>
> David
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Re: What should we call RDF's ability to allow multiple models
> to peacefully coexist, interconnected?
> Date:     Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:44:09 -0500
> From:     Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> To:     David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> CC:     semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
>
>
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "RDF's ability to allow multiple data
> models to peacefully coexist, interconnected, in the same data" ?
>
> -Alan
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:20 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>
>      I -- and I'm sure many others -- have struggled for years trying to
>      succinctly describe RDF's ability to allow multiple data models to
>      peacefully coexist, interconnected, in the same data.  For data
>      integration, this is a key strength of RDF that distinguishes it
>      from other information representation languages such as XML.   I
>      have tried various terms over the years -- most recently "schema
>      promiscuous" -- but have not yet found one that I think really nails
>      it, so I would love to get other people's thoughts.
>
>      This google doc lists several candidate terms, some pros and cons,
>      and allows you to indicate which ones you like best:
>      http://goo.gl/zrXQgj
>
>      Please have a look and indicate your favorite(s).  You may also add
>      more ideas and comments to it.  The document can be edited by anyone
>      with the URL.
>
>      Thanks!
>      David Booth
>
>
>
>