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

RE: Why is RDF such a tough sell?

From: Chris Goolsby <Chris.Goolsby@sas.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:20:34 -0400
Message-ID: <187D6D956106D84E9D8B280F6458FE145CA2BE@merc12.na.sas.com>
To: MDaconta@aol.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

We've been using Jena as well in an ongoing pilot project creating ontologies/taxonomies.  We've processed both RDF and DAML with Jena.  We're happy with it as well.  Can't beat the price....

  Chris Goolsby <=> Project Manager <=> XML Technologies
    email:     Chris.Goolsby@sas.com    SAS Institute Inc.
    telephone: (919) 531-5538           SAS Campus Drive
    fax:       (919) 677-4444           Cary, NC 27513

-----Original Message-----
From: Nataliya Roberts [mailto:nataliya@dstc.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:48 PM
To: MDaconta@aol.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why is RDF such a tough sell?

MDaconta@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/25/02 2:35:25 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
> seth@brivo.net writes:
> Tool support is critical.  In our project, when the architecture team 
> proposed RDF, 
> the development contractor immediately began searching for a commercial 
> product to use.  When they could not find one ... they balked.
> It appears this front is moving along reasonably well.  Anyone have real-world
> experience with JENA from HP?  I plan on downloading and exploring this in
> the near term.  Or is there something better I should look at?

we are using Jena in our research project ( if that qualifies for 
'real-world' experience ;) We have been using this tool for a while to 
parse RDF data representing ontologies and are happy with it so far.  It 
is easy to use and understand and is reliable.

Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 10:21:12 UTC

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