W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2005

RE: same-syntax extensions to RDF

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:55:34 -0000
Message-ID: <DDBBD1E00935D144AB9563D57EF98D621D63C5@raccoon.melandra.net>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

[This all needs a very large IMHO plastered over it.]

> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
> Don't you find it useful that so much can be stated in RDF?

No.  It's too easy for a naive RDF user to overstep the mark and try to
state something in RDF that cannot meaningfully be stated.  XML is a
much better basis, as it doesn't trouble itself with meaning.  RDF does,
which is where the problems tend to arise.

> I find RDF data very nice to work with.

I find it *possible* to work with RDF *data*.  It is certainly not
'nice' in even the Enid Blyton sense - I find it none of 'Pleasing and
agreeable in nature', 'Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive
discernment; subtle' or 'Done with delicacy and skill' [1].  It is
merely one of many ways of munging data together.  It has some features
that assist in merging data from different sources, but only assuming
that all the sources agree on the schema.  Whoopee - relational
databases have been able to do that for a good while.  As soon as any
two sources do not agree on the schema, extensions to RDF - such as OWL
- appear to be required.

I also haven't yet stopped boggling at the contortions required to use
RDF consistently for anything *except* asserted instance data - OWL
being a prime example.  If we *have* to keep RDF, why can we not keep it
as an instance data format only?

		- Peter

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nice
Received on Saturday, 1 January 2005 17:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC