• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Why RDF is hard
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:25:20 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1022-0C5815D1FA8911D687D90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

>For those who think in triples, RDF is a delight.  I just wish those
>people would recognize that a lot of people cannot and will not be
>joining them in that delight.


html hasChild head
head hasChild title
title hasChild "My response"
html hasChild body
body hasChild "I entirely agree that triples are a god-awful way of trying
to look at anything with more than trivial structure. But as with complex
RDF/XML that's a problem with the visualization rather than the structure.
It would be difficult to build a piece of furniture given just the parts
list and verbal instructions, so that's why flatpacks include diagrams. Even
then, the shelves don't look like the picture..."

• References:
  • Re: Why RDF is hard
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• Next by Date: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Previous by thread: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Next by thread: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread