- From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:01:57 EDT
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
In a message dated 6/25/02 1:34:54 AM US Mountain Standard Time, decoy@iki.fi writes: > >Imagine the search engines of the future; they can either be built to > >understand *just* the RDF model and "plug in" vocabularies as needed, or > >they will be stuck attempting to understand potentially thousands of > >independently developed XML Schemas. > > I'd add syndication and metadata harvesting, here. In the RDF framework, > neither of these applications needs to know anything about what is > processed, but they can still function. They become pure middleware, using > a common vocabulary expressed by RDF. That's a lot cleaner than having > each intermediary component understand the data it's passing through. This > sort of thing might sound like a pure engineering benefit, but it's real > enough if syndicated dataflows ever grow large enough. I must be missing something. We talk about "plug in" vocabularies -- I assume via RDFS. So what is the difference between needing to know 1000 RDFS vocabularies to do anything useful and knowing 1000 XML Schema vocabularies? I would love to see a sample program that does something useful without knowing a vocabulary beyond what RDF provides. - Mike ---------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Daconta Director, Web & Technology Services www.mcbrad.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 16:03:33 UTC