- From: Timothy W. Cook <tim@mlhim.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:33:23 -0300
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=OU3Wthw5tovrZrriTCX6NuRvXYRERCiZHMNtsa7fbLZoQVw@mail.gmail.com>
I think that the basic concept that it allows multiple data models to peacefully co-exist is an incorrect approach. What RDF really does is; provide a data model agnostic 'layer for semantic connections across information resources'. Cheers, Tim On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > I -- and I'm sure many others -- have struggled for years trying to > succinctly describe RDF's ability to allow multiple data models to > peacefully coexist, interconnected, in the same data. For data > integration, this is a key strength of RDF that distinguishes it from other > information representation languages such as XML. I have tried various > terms over the years -- most recently "schema promiscuous" -- but have not > yet found one that I think really nails it, so I would love to get other > people's thoughts. > > This google doc lists several candidate terms, some pros and cons, and > allows you to indicate which ones you like best: > http://goo.gl/zrXQgj > > Please have a look and indicate your favorite(s). You may also add more > ideas and comments to it. The document can be edited by anyone with the > URL. > > Thanks! > David Booth > > -- MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U ============================================ Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 994711995 MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2 Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5 Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 19:33:51 UTC