RE: Why Triples? (was Re: What do the ontologists want)

    I'm not really convinced, but am not going to press the point as you are
considerably more familiar with the territory than I am.
    Instead, I'd like to ask you to give the case *in favour* of triples -
surely there's a baby in the bath somewhere?


  When just about everyone in the RDF world has bought the arguments for
that case, I feel a contrarian moral duty to make the other one.

  Hadn't noticed ;-)

  The case for, as I understand it, is simply that triples are simple and
they are capable of encoding any graph structure, and a lot of people seem
to like them, so why not use 'em? And in fact I think that is reasonable, as
long as one faces up to the fact that this uniform use of triples is going
to be encoding a mixture of a number of uses that need to be distinguished
from one another eventually, so the 'uniformity' can be overstated and
doesnt buy one any miracle cures. In particular, it doesn't buy one a simple
universal assertional framework.

  Pat Hayes

  Thankyou, you're a gent, sir.

  (I'm now saving up for a simple universal assertional framework)