Re: RDF isn't so hot

+1

Of course, IMO, this list isn't exhaustive.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 08/12/2002 12:36:11 PM:

> 
> At the risk of throwing in a wet towel on a flame fest etc. etc. I feel 
it 
> is important to raise a few warnings about RDF.
> 
>  From a number of different points of view, RDF has serious issues:
> 
> 1. Software Engineering
>    RDF is `aggressively' untyped; in some ways it is even worse than XML 
in 
> this regard which at least has DTDs and XML schemas to assist the 
process.
>   RDF is untypeable (sic) and proud of it. This maximizes the impedance 
gap 
> between RDF and regular programming languages.
> 
> 2. Logical expressiveness
>    RDF is a very simple language, propositional in character, when 
viewed 
> as a language for expressing knowledge. This puts a serious dent in its 
> utility. DAML `solves' this by imposing a somewhat artificial layering 
on 
> top of RDF -- to the point where DAML is both crippled by its 
foundations 
> and in fact pretty distant from them. The logical technique used in the 
> DAML semantics seems (to this person) a little dubious.
> 
> 3. Semantics
>    Taken as a weak KR language (which is its purpose) RDF appears to be 
> higher order. Since it is possible to state, in RDF:
>    likes = hates
> 
>    Pat Hayes has developed a semantics for RDF that skirts this problem 
but 
> hey: we have a weak, untyped language that needs some sophisticated 
logic 
> to get a reasonable semantics. That sounds promising!
> 
> Let me add one important point: the MOTIVATION for RDF, and DAML/OIL for 

> that matter, is spot on. This complaint is about the technology used to 
> solve the problems.
> 
> Remember, there is nothing wrong with problem solving; but all 
technology 
> solutions show up on the negative side of the equation -- the RISK side.
> 
> Frank
> 
>