Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> >I don't think the problem is as simple as "what RDF does is hard." > >For me, the problem with RDF is the demands it places on me for keeping >track of the structures described. Invariably, when I look at >information stored in RDF (or a Topic Map) in a graphical form, the >connections make sense, the overall structure or lack thereof is very >clear. When I look at the same information in its raw RDF document >form, I start to mutter about people who are too damn smart creating >models which are suitable only for computers and people who can think >like computers. >I find markup very human - even annoyingly human. I just came back from >a meeting where I showed off some SVG maps but really wowed them with >the raw XML used to store the data. I never mentioned or explained XML, >but I didn't have to - they were looking at the marked-up data and >comparing it to the SVG and performing their own transformations. Then >they asked if they could add X, Y, and Z or put it into Excel/SPSS/etc. >and were happy that the answer was yes. > >(Given that I hadn't finished the demo, this was very gratifying, but to >continue...) > >Embedded markup, whatever its sins may be, is very good at making things >explicit. I can usually look at a well-designed document and keep track >of even complicated hierarchical relationships and even the occasional >ID/IDREF connection. I can't do that with most RDF - when I have to >think about it in terms that go beyond simple markup the overhead of >keeping track of the pieces makes the effort outweigh the benefits. > >I don't think the RDF community has ever really understood that what >they do is genuinely difficult for most people. The RDF community seems >very self-selecting to me - those who can cope with RDF like it, and the >rest of us keep our distance. I'm not sure it's ever been clear to >people who find RDF intuitive why so many people bounce off of it >completely, and I'm not convinced that it's possible to explain that to >someone who genuinely likes RDF. > >I guess we'll see if this message generates the usual "but you're wrong >about RDF it's so simple and clear" messages that previous efforts to >state the same thesis have garnered. Simon, RDF wasn't easy for me. I don't think it's easy for anyone. And there have been more times then I can tell you getting irritated at the tangents among the discussions related to RDF about the more esoteric elements of same. However, I could understand a pay-back to, and the power of, something such as RDF. As soon as I started writing about XML (first published in January, 1998 on it), I knew that one thing XML would eventually need is a meta-model or all we would ever have is isolated little XML vocabularies all over the place, and absolutely no inter-operation between them because there is no general agreement on the elements, and how they relate to each other. Is RDF clear and easy? Not a chance. But does this make its value less? Might as well take away the value of Perl (which some people find too cryptic), or C++ (which some people find too difficult), or any other technology that can have a steep learning curve. If RDF was easy, we wouldn't need the six documents to describe it. I wouldn't need to write the book on it. We wouldn't need examples, or test cases, or tools. But none of this makes the value of RDF less; it just makes the challenge of using it effectively greater. Shelley >------------- >Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA >http://simonstl.com may be my URI >http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI >urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
