- From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <sv@crystaliz.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:19:15 -0500
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Ralph, >XML Schema cares more about the form of the expression, RDF Schema >(and RDF Model&Syntax) care more about the meaning of the expression. > This is true. However, representing knowledge does not come easy. This is made harder by the syntax chosen by RDF. Additionally, the cognitive overhead of having to learn two different languages establishes a conceptual barrier where there is no reason for the conceptual barrier to exist except for historical reasons. Therefore, if one wants to represent semantics and yet is interested in leveraging the adoption of XML-Schema by DBMS and other repository vendors, one will represent that semantics with limited support provided by XML-Schema. As an example, one only has to look at the DBMS community. For the longest time now, it has been known in the research community that representing semantics (knowledge) is very important to mediating heterogeneous DBMSs. Yet, the approaches that have taken off there have been based on structural approaches. IMHO, this is because the knowledge representation languages (such as KIF) that were proposed to address the 'semantics' problem setup a conceptual chasm that was never crossed by most developers. For good or bad, RDF has established such a chasm (syntax, dense documentation, poor use cases, no compelling community effort that shows off the use in simple cases, etc., etc.) >ought to make that happen. But multiple object classes that provide >different views on a single data structure is also a bit of technology >that we all understand how to work with in our toolset. > Could you please point to an example which has the property of getting widely adopted by novice users. One only has to look at CORBA's language mappings to see the kind of conceptual barriers to entry for novice users. Aren't we talking about 'markup' languages that have the property that they have to be understood and adopted by a large community that is not formally trained in first order predicate calculus or 'reification' ;-). IMHO, there is a big gap that RDF tried to fill, but lost sight of along the way: a *simple* markup language for meta-data. That gap still exists. However, time has passed us by. Yes, it is simpler than XML-Schema + XLink for this purpose, but not by much. Also, the lack of smooth progression from RDF to XML-Schema or XML-Schema to RDF is *now* a problem for adoption of RDF. This is one of the reasons I believe you are not getting any feedback on request for APIs, etc. One has only so much mind space. The cognitive overhead in learning about things that seem to do the same things in different ways in the context of other standards (DOM, XLink, XPath, to name a few) at a certain point makes a pragmatic consumer to toss out the glory of 'semantic web'. If you believe my analysis is correct, then there are only two courses of action left. Fall in line with other standards that have well identified and pragmatic purposes so that there is not a cognitive overhead for the consumer. Or, assemble a simple and small sub-set with the associated *revolutionary* community to get it going. Knowledge representation is a tough problem. Let us not make it harder. Sankar
Received on Friday, 12 November 1999 20:18:39 UTC