On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 13:29, Rick Jelliffe <> wrote:
> So perhaps we can amend my comment to: I have a perception of people
> adopting RDF (in XML) then figuring out they didn't get any extra benefit
> over using plain old XML or an optimized RDF notation.
What, so you only want examples where people use XML in boring and
obvious ways? :)
You *can* do RDF in XML where the ontologies are clever and the
notation of getting from model to implementation is low, i.e. well
designed and thought-out systems, but they are indeed far and wide
apart. Because semantic data modeling is a reasonably new thing
(although in Internet years it's really dog years by now) people tend
to do large and fluffy ontology work (not to mention that I think the
RDF people did a large and fluffy meta model when they designed RDF
itself).
The last few years have seen some pretty good improvements, with more
concise and practical RDF ontologies, so I think we're seeing
acceleration of use that will have an important impact on the future
of computing, for sure.
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
