RE: [BioRDF] Meeting Notes Feb 27, 2006

Hi All,

> So RDF = UML 4.0? :-)

At the OMG there is a proposed Ontology Definition Metamodel that IBM
and SandPiper are submitting that takes an excellent look at this issue.

cheers,
Michael

Michael Miller
Lead Software Developer
Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit
www.rosettabio.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Jain
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci
> Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Meeting Notes Feb 27, 2006
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Stambaugh wrote:
> > It seems to me that RDF helps us describe and model the 
> structure of our 
> > data. In my view, we'll then *use* this RDF-derived 
> description and model to 
> > build relational databases that hold said data. In this 
> worldview, the 
> > existence of the RDF description then helps us keep the 
> dynamic models --  
> > written in Java, Python or whatever -- in synch with the underlying 
> > relational descriptions, kept in relational DB's like MySql 
> and Oracle.
> 
> So RDF = UML 4.0? :-)
> 
> But beware the "impedance mismatch"...
> 
> I have to admit that most of the code I work with is still 
> "static". This 
> is inefficient, especially if your data model has some complexity and 
> changes frequently, but generic data models can be rather 
> difficult to work 
> with (even if there is generated code to ease the pain). 
> Nevertheless I 
> hope to gradually replace code that is tied to the data model 
> with generic 
> code, especially for lower-level infrastructure such as 
> database storage, 
> querying, serialization etc.
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2006 17:06:59 UTC