- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:34:40 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >>For example, >>every resource is related to every other, if OWL is in play, because >>their types are all subclasses of owl:Thing. I don't think >>that anyone >>wants to end up with that in their supposedly bounded subgraphs! > > > This is precisely why I consider CBDs the most optimal default > form of representation for most applications. > > Other applications may need/want something different, but that also > incurs the risk and overhead of larger (perhaps unmanagable) responses. > > So while I consider it truly useful to have a number of different forms > of descriptions which are relevant to certain kinds of applications > defined in a standardized manner, so that various services which offer more > than one form of description can all agree on what they contain and > what they are called, etc. we still need a default form of description > that, all other things being equal, works reasonably well for most > applications and avoids most of the scalability/magnitude issues. > I fully agree, and (if it wasn't obvious), my post (partially quoted above) was intended to support your position. Cheers, Tom P -- Thomas B. Passin Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books) http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 13:33:41 UTC