W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002


From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB01488766@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
They should not be using RDF, RDFSchema or DAML.  In fact, most people
use XML to encode and exchange data and would like to do everything,
including inferencing on their XML documents.  We can provide mappings
XML to triple-based representations.

In my personal view, this special syntax -- RDF -- will and has hurt the
acceptance of the Semantic Web effort by mainstream industry.

All the best, Ashok 

-----Original Message-----
From: R.V.Guha [mailto:guha@guha.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:24 PM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS

I was talking yesterday to a friend whose is working with
some geologists who want to share data. They are of
course planning on using xml and are in the process
of writing up their xml schemas.

They have applications that do all kinds of sophisticated analysis
on this data. They have no need of doing the kinds of inferences
that rdfs/daml enables. Their apps do computations that are far
more complex and it would be easy for them to modify their
apps to make it do the few (if any) inferential facilities rdfs/daml
offers, if the need arises.

I tried to make a case for  rdf/rdfs/daml, but given the
substantially more tools available for xml/xml schema and their
lack of interest in simple inferences, I couldn't in good faith push
too hard for rdf/rdfs/daml.

So, should they be using rdfs/daml? Why?

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:40 UTC