Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I am snipping heavily to keep this toward the technical debate about the applicability of RDF technologies to the services framework. I mention that other technologies might provide the same services not to debunk RDF or to promote OLAP or relational systems, but to point out that we may have multiple means here and that to chase or specify one without regard to these alternatives can lead to a less coherent standardization of means at the time where a standard becomes useful. So far, you are saying that this approach is easier and cheaper because it is extensible and flexible given that the structure is less rigorous and that results in cost savings. Good points. Do others who use RDF agree? Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: uche.ogbuji@f... [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] we use RDF in closed space alone, where we control URIs, data-streams, and process. You ask what RDF lends us that existing relational processing doesn't. I already mentioned that it is the extensibility and the flexibility accorded by less rigorous structure. In the sort of applications we build, these things do save the clients time and money.
|
