• To: 'Frank Manola' <fmanola@a...>
• Subject: RE: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabular ies to Implement Large (Complex) Systems
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:33:08 -0600
• Cc: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>

Yes.  That's a point John Sowa makes repeatedly.

But RDF is low level.  That may be a flaw in ubiquitous 
application particularly since a lot of what goes on 
there is replicated in the querying and business rules 
middle layers of applications.

I disagree, Danny.  XML is a heckuva lot easier to 
explain to a business analyst than RDF.  However, 
in neither case should they be exposed to that 
level of the system.

len


From: Frank Manola [mailto:fmanola@a...]

Specifically regarding RDF, it reinvents and/or borrows from quite 
a few languages/approaches (and the specs cite many of them);  starting 
off with logic, which is thousands of years old (depending on who you 
listen to)

• Prev by Date: Stopping and resuming a sax parser?
• Next by Date: Re: Stopping and resuming a sax parser?
• Previous by thread: Stopping and resuming a sax parser?
• Next by thread: [ANN] Reminder: Call for Participation, XTech 2005, 24-27 May,Amsterdam, Netherlands
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread