Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Jun 14, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > No, I think I said what I meant. It was an analogy. I'm not saying > that RDF *is* a standardized database schema, I'm saying that choosing > RDF is *analogous* to choosing one in the sense that the architectural > properties that are induced are very similar I've wondered for years about the analogy between RDF and the binary-relational model (cf http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1147347.htm) in which everything is modeled as two entities with a relationship between them There's also variants such as the Associative Model of Data http://www.lazysoft.com/resources_downloads.htm As Dare implies, there has got to be some sort of mapping between the abstraction of triples / binary relations and actual application data. Of course that's true with raw XML or the n-ary relational model, but triples seem to be a pretty abstract abstraction, and it sounds like this is one reason why the binary relational approach hasn't taken off. I just wonder whether RDF advocates are aware of these other triples-like approaches, what they think they've learned from them, or whether they think the analogy is misleading?
|
