Re: How will the semantic web emerge

I find this a surprising assertion, as object oriented, strongly,  
statically typed code is hugely important in enterprise programming,  
whereas Lisp is used but rarely. Personally, I view RDF as more along  
the lines of Python or similar important dynamic, strongly typed  
languages -- we can play fast and loose with it in many ways, using  
duck typing, but the types are still there to exploit when useful.

I don't think we want the situation to degenerate to where we're  
accepting RDF "tag soup", but nor should an ontology be required for  
meaningful RDF exchange. It doesn't hurt those who care not about  
type information if types are included by those who choose to, and  
those who want more typing information can always run the RDF and  
relevant ontologies through a reasoner.


> Your entire message described the debate precisely -- I think of it as
> O-O versus Lisp.  I think that the O-O style (strongly typed) will  
> never
> be the mainstream.  For semweb to be as commonplace as WWW, we need  
> bare
> naked triples, like lisp.  Just as I can hyperlink to a page, whether
> that page is valid, alive, or ever existed; I must be able to read a
> predicate, whether that resource is properly typed or not.

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 21:26:18 UTC