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: (wrong string) čius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:17:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE35VmyZ7WtQiKE6_820ODP0pWBOJGg_JbTH3_XNbJZVWst4vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Cc: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hey all,

for me it helps to illustrate the advantage of RDF universality using 2 idioms:
- hub-and-spoke that leads to linear integration costs:
- pivotal data conversion with RDF in the center:

RDF is like Unicode of data models. Since graph data model can
accomodate any type of data and RDF is the only standard in this area,
other similar models will be isomorphic but non-standard reinventions
at best. So lets focus on RDF and build it even deeper into the
software ecosystem, so we can finally produce some user-friendly yet
generic applications.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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 18:18:06 UTC

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