> > I won't comment on the success or failure of RDF, but it
> seems to me
> > that it's highly abstract, not necessarily highly generic.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. What's the difference? (Seriously...)
Excellent question. I'll hazard an answer.
The class of "everything that moves" is generic (because it embraces lots of
different kinds of thing), but it's not abstract (because it's a simple
partitioning of all things based on a simple observable property).
Abstraction demands more than dividing objects into categories; it demands a
creative leap, involving the discovery of new ways of looking at things,
yielding new insights.
I won't defend that distinction to the death, but it's a try...
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
