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

Re: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:01:29 -0600
Message-Id: <200204220401.g3M41Tv30837@localhost.localdomain>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
cc: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > 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.
> 
> A well made point. I've been hearing variations of this from members of
> the digital library community too. The kinds of queries and inferences
> licensed by Description Logic-based systems (DAML+OIL etc) are a world
> away from the sorts of end-user queries traditionally encountered in the
> Digital Library world. Simple phrase, substring and regex searching, or
> searching based on based on datatypes, go beyond the facilities innate to
> RDF, RDS and DAML+OIL (and, perhaps, WebOnt's new language).

I'm not entirely sure I understand you here, Dan,  but it sounds as if you are 
describing query features rather than model features.  For instance, substring 
searching is not "innate" to RDBMS in any way, but SQL types have been using 
LIKE queries happily for years.

We've built exactly these facilities you mention into the Versa query language 
because we need to have such power while querying RDF models.


> RDF is a pretty handy intermediate representation for data exchange. But
> I get the impression some folk feel it has been (to be blunt) side-tracked
> into the AI/KR world, and that implementors are now expected to implement
> everything in a logic programming / KR environment. I think that's a
> mistaken view, and there are plenty of other deployment strategies, but
> we've not been that clear on the various options and tradeoffs available
> for implementors.

Well, I for one, as some will recognize, have made it my mission to help 
rescue RDF from all the AI/logic/mumbo-jumbo and try making it safe for simple 
practical work.

I don't have a problem with high-powered AI based on RDF, but RDF's main 
attaraction to folks like me is its simplicity, and I'd like to keep the deep 
voodoo at a level apart.

Luckily, I think that, though the new specs have gained consistency at the 
expense of lucidity, RDF is still something the average developer can put to 
use after a few hours' experiment, without having a doctorate in maths or 
philosophy.  This is *crucial*.

I've also done a lot of work on practical tools for RDF that integrate into 
other systems in wide use, such as XSLT.  I also think this will be essential: 
we need more RDF tools that don't require that doctorate in maths or 
philosophy to use.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                           Fourthought, Inc.
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com           http://fourthought.com
http://4Suite.org                     http://uche.ogbuji.net
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): 
http://www.xmlconference.com/
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk10/index.html
WSDL and the Wild, Wild West - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6004
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - 
http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 00:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT