W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2014

Re: What should we call RDF's ability to allow multiple models to peacefully coexist, interconnected?

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:37:37 -0700
Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49072F08-2FA3-4D81-9F52-91E8F660129B@syapse.com>
To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>

On this excellent thread, there is little else to say  but still I will have a go

On Mar 9, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote:

> The claims regarding interoperability and semantics are a bit exaggerated, IMO.
> 
> If we had something like annotated portable RDB schemas, would they carry less
> meaning and would applications built with them be less interoperable than with
> MLHIM?


Maybe an advantage of RDF is that we can partially align schema, whereas in a more traditional world, either we do the work to do a full alignment, or we don't do it at all. Since, often, the full alignment is cost prohibitive we end up with data silos

So my contribution to this discussion is the word 'partial'

Jeremy


Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 17:46:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:36 UTC