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

Re: Why is RDF such a tough sell?

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:36:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3D174AA4.DCA866B4@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

"Schema" is a tad ambiguous;  there is more than one schema language.  
Before getting into technical details, could you say which "schema" is
"Schema"?  XML Schema?  Something else?


MDaconta@aol.com wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I am fairly new to this list but hope you can help me
> in defending RDF as an architectural direction.
> About six months ago, for a government integration project we
> proposed RDF as our registry data model but encountered
> significant resistance from developers, data architects and
> decision makers.  One suprising source of resistance was
> from an XML instructor who stated (to the class), "RDF is unnecessary,
> Schema can do everything RDF can."
> So, although this issue has many angles, I'd like to begin with
> this question, "Are RDF and Schema competitors?"
> I think this is a central issue as most current RDF examples (like
> dublin core and RSS) could be done with Schema.  My gut feel is
> that current RDF applications have not demonstrated the power
> of a "killer relationship" between resources (or concepts).
> What are your thoughts or experiences?
> Have others experienced this Schema versus RDF problem?
> I am getting ready to redress this issue and I would like
> to have as much ammunition as I can carry.  Of course,
> concrete examples are best.
> Looking forward to discussing this,
>  - Mike
> -------------------------------
> Michael C. Daconta
> Director, Web and Technology Services
> www.mcbrad.com

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 12:37:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:41 UTC