Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Even if we can get the semantics sharable or just get them all to agree that a boolean choice is not an int or is, we probably built traps into our own relational table designs. An issue is that many relational systems contain a lot of system-specific metadata spread around throughout the tables to data-drive the system itself. Some bits are isolated into system tables, but others are in the content tables. Think code systems for picklists, user-extensible GUI features, etc. Now the question becomes, if you want to create a true content-centric schema minus the GUI stuff, how well will that be rehydratible even roundtripping in and out of the same system? Just [expletive deleted] the marrow out of the relational bones mechanically isn't enough. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@h...] Another interesting question is whether you have to provide a vocabulary or ontology so that these other agencies' software can discover what you mean by "driver", "SSN", or whatever, or whether the meaning of the terms can be taken for granted. The first alternative is getting to be Semantic-Web-ish, and sure would take a lot more doing.
|
