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

Re: Why is RDF such a tough sell?

From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:32:30 EDT
Message-ID: <137.102f7355.2a4b62be@aol.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

In a message dated 6/26/02 12:50:39 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com writes:
> > I'd say the only time RDF becomes truly essential is when you need to 
>  have
>  > clearly defined semantics for a reference back to the logical relations
>  > you're only just defining. There arbitrary XML simply becomes too
>  > unwieldy, while RDF still behaves just as it did in the beginning.

I think this mixes up two different concepts -- RDF for instances and 
RDF for class (ontology) definition.  I do not believe that there is any 
merit to assuming that RDF as the basis for ontologies requires 
RDF instances.  The classes in your ontology could just as easily be 
mapped to XML Schema elements.  In essence, is this not what 
the OMG MDA is proposing?  In either case, the reference back is 
just a URI.

If there are any OMG'ers out there -- I'd like to hear their take and 
timetable for serializing to RDF.  

So, currently, I get "RDFS for ontologies" but don't get RDF instances in the 
absence of ontologies.  Nor would I assume that ontologies require RDF
instances.  IMO, for the sake of real-world compatibility, Ontologies will 
have 
to be able to refer to XML Schema elements (and vice versa).

 - Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
www.mcbrad.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 14:33:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT