- From: Scott Henninger <shenninger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 20:18:02 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: "Timothy W. Cook" <tim@mlhim.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
One problem with describing the value of RDF is that it addresses multiple problems at once with a rather parsimonious data representation. Who needs foreign keys when you have object properties? Who needs keys at all when you have URI's that are possibly human consumable? (Though many seem to fight the latter, and sometimes for good reason.) So it's difficult to put into a catch phrase, but Tim's statement about being model-agnostic, along with simplicity that enables data transformation, seems like a good start. (Actually, I could be convinced to disagree with the "data agnostic" statement. RDF does impose a data model, and even a bit of logic. But it's parsimony sets it apart from other data models, IMHO. Henceforth the previous statement on RDF being both simple, but addressing so many conventional issues that people see it as complex.) -- Scott > On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > >> On 03/07/2014 02:33 PM, Timothy W. Cook wrote: >> [ . . . ] What RDF really does is; >> provide a data model agnostic 'layer for semantic connections across >> information resources'. > > That is true, but I am hoping for a term that somehow also succinctly conveys the **value proposition** of doing so -- i.e., a term that somehow alludes to the benefit that this characteristic provides. > > David > >> >> Cheers, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org >> <mailto: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 Saturday, 8 March 2014 01:18:37 UTC