- From: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:26:58 +1200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: acl@opus.cs.columbia.edu, daml-all@daml.org, www-annotation@w3.org, seweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com, irlist-editor@acm.org, Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>, Jean-Luc Delatre <jld@club-internet.fr>, kaw@swi.psy.uva.nl, ontoweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at, ontology@fipa.org
A short 2 cents. It's new because we are talking about it - some things may seem old fashioned, but of course history is important, and refactoring is what people do. Practicality - some rhetorical questions from attempting to understand and implement 'semantic web' tools - model representation - is it meant to compete with or complement SQL and object oriented programming(OOP)? i.e. do we drop our current modelling environments and all think in DL? - data representation - is it meant to compete with or complement SQL and OOP? - persistence and in memory representation - I'm so used to representing my instance of data in an object with getters and setters, but now I can use an RDF query language to get the values of properties from an instance. Is this competition between the two models? which way do I turn? - query systems - depends on the above. If one has a large SQL database, do we need to change our modelling environment and our instance representation to make use of web ontology languages. If the idea is SQL will become obsolete, then this question becomes obsolete. - resource discovery - seems like there is little competition here, RSS is a splendid example of RDF and resource discovery in an explicit sense. The confusion comes over what it would be to have resource discovery and relationships implicit - e.g. I import N ontologies into ontology x, what is the practicality of how complete x is at any one time, and how sensitive to changes in the ontologies N. cheers Matt
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 18:27:22 UTC