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
Thanks, will read shortly.  I'm glad you guys have hashed it out thoroughly.
>
> (It seems similar to the EXI fidelity considerations.)
>
> 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.
It's a little confusing I think to talk about XML vs. RDF as the 
encoding itself, which is most of what XML is, isn't really the issue.  
XML is about a basic encoding format with only a few rules about how 
anything should be represented, giving maximum flexibility.  RDF (and 
OWL etc.), which already has several low-level encodings, is completely 
about representing ideas.  It is flexibility at a different level of 
abstraction.  When I am arguing RDF vs. XML, I'm really contrasting the 
mainstream historical of the use of XML to represent data, mainly as 
object-like trees of data, vs. things that approach meta-data laden 
"knowledge graphs" on the RDF side.  The most natural way to use XML 
tends to close off some important levels of flexibility later, even 
though it is much better than prior methods.  Anything here can be 
represented in an XML encoding, just with a more sophisticated model 
than "typical" XML.  The conversation at hand was about a much more 
efficient encoding than XML (or N3, et al) for the RDF semantics, 
however it would still be equivalent to some XML encoding.

I have often in the past explained XML as being more about a great set 
of idioms that had come of age, compared to older methods, than about 
the encoding.  Many of the innovations of XML could have been done with 
older technologies, just as many of the innovations of Java could have 
been implemented in prior technologies.  Similarly, but more so, RDF has 
a much different set of idioms than XML for representing data and 
solving problems, even if the result is expressed in XML.  The new set 
of idioms are better than the old, still very good, set.

sdw
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 17:58:53 UTC