Re: relational data as a bona fide member of the SM

I have been asking this sort of questions for a while and the only decent
answer I know is that
Description Logics only work with unary and binary predicates (classes and
although I believe RDF was initially developed independently from the DL
and OWL work.

RIF and RuleML seem to be going in the relational direction (see also the
earlier work
Harold Boley), but it is difficult to break the monopoly

A related thing I hate about RDF (as a practitioner) is the poor data
model. In particular, the open world assumption does not allow to fully and
unambiguously describe some objects. Pragmatically, it would be nice to
have something like the ML data model.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Sampo Syreeni <> wrote:

> As a relational minded guy, I wonder why there aren't any genuinely
> relational minded formats/syntaxes/data around, which still embody the
> SemWeb/LinkedData mindset. I mean, that ought to be pretty easy to do, and
> it then ought to bring all of the benefits which once made RM so great and
> overpowering.
> Why precisely do all of the semweb formats stay ternary, thereby forcing
> themselves to reify any higher arity, and as such complicate the processing
> of higher arity data by adding an extra reification layer?
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy -,
> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

Alexandre Riazanov (Alexander Ryazanov), PhD
Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
Skype: alexandre.riazanov

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 19:21:26 UTC