W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Querying reified statements

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:01:53 -0800
Message-ID: <3A37F1D1.B8891EE@robustai.net>
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
CC: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
William Loughborough wrote:

> I could be completely out of line, but the idea that using RDF as an
> internal means of indexing (which can be done and is being done as we
> speak) should be down-played as "not very useful" was what I was
> questioning. The alternatives to my using a qwerty keyboard that involve
> pen-based and voice-recognition systems have been "six months away" for
> thirty years and I just get a feeling that a similar thing just *might* be
> happening here. Without analysis, it's clear synthesis would be less
> effective, however (and I plead that that's what I meant by "but") the
> ratio seems askew.

Please, don't get me wrong .. I am probably the most enthusiastic supporter of
reading and writing RDF just exactly as it has been specified that you will
find in this group.  I love the stuff.   I see it as the first natural language
that both humans and computers can read ... well maybe some humans and some
computers (apparently Win32 computers are the exception).  But internal
implementations will need to go beyond  the language or they will become
hopelessly caught up in all the problems that are being discussed right now.
In fact if you look at the internals of most of the APIs that are available,
you will see that they have actually implemented quadruples rather than
triples.   Let me put it to you this way:  There will be applications that are
implemented above the RDF layer of communication ... it is in those layers that
we must go beyond the limitations of RDF.

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 16:57:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT