Re: About computer-optimized RDF format.

Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> On 25 Jul 2008, at 09:45, Stephen Williams wrote:
>
>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Jul 2008, at 03:08, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I view RDF and related standards in a number of ways, ranging 
>>>>>> from simple application use to AI.  One key part is that I think 
>>>>>> that RDF is the next logical step past XML in data flexibility 
>>>>>> and clarity of representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is by no means obvious. See the lengthy thread starting:
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/mid/486A0516.2010702@gmail.com>
>>>> Many in that thread, except you, agree with me.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>>   (I waded in 20 messages or so, until it was waist deep in 
>>>> epistemology.)  You make good points, but don't convince me that my 
>>>> comment above is wrong, at least in a wide range of applications.
>>>
>>> The burden of proof is on you, not me. This is true inherently (as 
>>> you are making a very strong claim) and in particular here (since 
>>> I've provided rather detailed argument and you just got your bald 
>>> assertion).
>> The burden of proof is shared I think.  Existence of a status quo 
>> doesn't automatically justify itself when discrepancies are pointed out.
>
> I think you are working in different dialectics. In that discussion 
> (and thus, I think, in this list) there has been no plausible evidence 
> that RDF is better than XML in terms of model evolution or convergance 
> resulting in invariant queries.
>
> Tim Glover made the best attempt to show otherwise, e.g.,
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jul/0046.html
>
> But I think it was amply refuted (not just by me).
>
> I tried to distill some of this:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jul/0098.html
>
> (It seems similar to the EXI fidelity considerations.)

It seems the URI-based graph-merger is the best (and perhaps *only*) 
selling point of RDF in comparison with say, normalizing XML and OO XML 
Schema extension.

Is that in terms of XML vs. RDF for data integration - not queries etc. 
- addressed anywhere?

As someone who does some data merger, I used to do it in XML via XSLT, 
and now I just move things over to RDF after a process of "URI 
normalization" - i.e. making sure we use the same URIs as keys. I'd like 
to hear about other people's experiences here.

> In other words, I am *not* resting on automatic justification of 
> anything. There have been detailed arguments and, at the moment, there 
> nothing plausible left standing that RDF is inherently or practically 
> more flexibly or clear. At the moment, I lean toward "it's a matter of 
> taste, temperament, experience, infrastructure, *and* task".
>
>>   Practically though, you're right.  Certainly I and any 
>> co-conspirators that I may have need to provide prove this better.
> [snip]
>
> Or at all. Seriously. (This isn't about binary formats, it's about RDF 
> vs. XML.)
>
> Unless you can really build a good case I think it's very 
> counterproductive to sell RDF this way. Even then, I'd be super leary 
> about strong claims.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 12:59:42 UTC