- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:50:17 -0800
- To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Seth Russell" <russell.seth@gmail.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
> and into the data, you have to try to model your data in ways that will > allow the machines to perform meaningful reasoning. Given the current > the only way to license inferences. Hopefully more expressive mechanisms > (e.g. rules) will join the party at some point so we don't have to I can agree that this is the tradeoff. I believe that taking dependency on RDFS, inference, and OWL today means that you chop off about 90% of your potential integration partners. It is similar to using WS-* -- you get a deeper integration, but you lose the people who can only cut/paste some JavaScript and use redirects rather than install Visual Studio. And those latter people outnumber the former by a factor of 10:1. Since I am interested in seeing semantic web be a "reach integration" technology, where everyone can use it just like the HTML and HTTP, I prefer designs which do not require the full complicated stack. The full stack is fine for people doing enterprise integration. And I hate to see us making data modeling decisions based on technologies which are not mature and are at best enterprise-only; because for example, would we make the same modeling decision if rules were available today instead of OWL? I think class hierarchies are nice for programming languages; not so much for data modeling.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:50:57 UTC