RDF(S) & OWL goodness (Re: comparing XML and RDF data models

Let's change the thread. Instead of talking about whether XML and RDF  
are better and worse for preserving queries under structural change  
(since Paul has shown that, in principle, there's an equivalence),  
let's talk about the goodness!

Here's a first cut (to be fleshed out). I asterisk the ones I'm not  
sure are true or that I can show:

****1) RDF, and RDF culture, has some good affordances for "more  
compatible" structural modeling. That is, one is more likely to get  
(structure) compatible models if you start with RDF and model  
"normally".
	Why? Well, there are insignificant representational choices that XML  
puts up front (e.g., attributes vs. elements) that have a big effect  
on queries. Also, since XML's model is of the *data* (not the world)  
there's less incentive to find "natural fits" (e.g., properties model  
relations whereas in XML nesting could model a relation or a hierarchy).
	I find this pretty weak. I've seen plenty of highly variant  
modeling. I have trouble believing that two people sitting down will  
reliably come up with anything similar.

****2) RDF allows you to keep everything in "one model". I.e., you  
can just keep adding stuff to your pile o triples and sort things out  
later.
	Is this actually a strength? In principle, you can do that in an xml  
database and you can have queries that span more than one document/ 
schema.

	3) Inference can help with schema alignment.
	I believe this. Even consistency checking of classes can be helpful.  
See ICOM. Plus there are presentational benefits to a class hierarchy.

Ok, ran out of steam and have no references. Feel free to add,  
question, or elaborate!

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 10:45:37 UTC