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: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:52:42 +0000
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7533478C-1996-4A4C-AEF3-C80E7D76AB36@glasers.org>
To: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
So while we are on describing the benefits of RDF to outsiders...
On 12 Mar 2014, at 17:51, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com> wrote:

> SUMMARY:
> 
> There are nice things and root causes of nice things. I think that all the nice things can be bundled into the term “schema flexibility”, which includes the idea of late binding, being optional etc, as well as the other major idea which is to handle multi-schema at the same time.
> 
> 
>  Schema flexibility derives from:
> 
> 
> 1.      schema being optional,
> 
> 2.      the fact that there is one representation for both data and schema
> 
> 3.      the fact that URIs make snapping data and schema from multipls sources (as it were) as snap. FIBO Telecon 2014-03-11
Yes.
Very important.
This is the other side of the coin from the idea that there is no semantic search.
There is only semantic lookup.
All that searching stuff that goes on normally is replaced with URI resolution (via the “snap” you talk about - nice terminology).
Cheers
Hugh
> 
>  
> DETAILS:
> 
> I arrived at this conclusion by carefully looking at all the candidate terms, they fall into two categories:
> 
> 1.      Being friendly to multi-schema
> 
> 2.      Schema being optional.
> 
>  
> 1.      Being friendly to multiple schema: This is related to having uniform representation for shcema and data, but not the same.  You cannot  import multiple independent DB schema into a DB, even though they are in the same language. Similar ideas:
> 
> a.      Supports coexistence of multiple vocabularies and multiple data models
> 
> b.      Multi-schema friendly (shorter wording)
> 
> c.       Poly schema friendly (a synonym for multi-schema friendly)
> 
> d.      Poly-schema greedy (not sure what greedy means here, there are no forces wanting more and more schema that I know of).
> 
> e.       Supports multiple representations
> 
> f.       Supports overloaded representations
> 
> g.      Supports multiple overlapping vocabularies
> 
> h.      Supports poly-structured data
> 
> a.       Schema-diverse (or Vocabulary-diverse)
> 2.      Schema is optional, which is the root cuase of the following, some of which are also optional:
> 
> a.       Schema free (the other viewpoint, also optional)
> 
> b.      Late binding, shema later (you can add a schema later)
> 
> c.       Pay as you go: same as late binding optional
> 
> d.      Schema flexible
> 
> e.       Schema promiscuity
> 
> f.       Model agnostic
> 
> g.      Vocabulary agnostic
> 
> h.      Schema friendly
> 
>  
> What is not mentioned, but are profoundly important in any mention of RDF are:
> 
> ·         The fact that URIs are used to do graph node-foldign so thigns automatically snap together.  Without this, it would not be possible for multi-schema to live nicely together.
> 
> ·         Ther is a uniform representation  for both data and schema. This makes is easier for multi-schema to live nicely together
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:20 AM, 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Uschold
>    Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
>    http://www.semanticarts.com
>    LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
>    Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Hugh Glaser
   20 Portchester Rise
   Eastleigh
   SO50 4QS
Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:53:08 UTC

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