Re: XML vs RDF

["Seth Nickell" <seth gnome org>]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 7:18PM -0800, Curtis C. Hovey wrote:
> I for on prefer RelaxNG over XML-Schema.  I don't wont to toss our RDF
> exploration away lightly.  RDF is incompatible with RDBMS, but as other
> implementations has made compromises so that some RDf can be used,

I'm not asking us to throw away our exploration... The exploration was 
valuable and will inform us in the future. But in all this time looking 
at RDF I haven't found a compelling problem that we'd be solving through 
the use of RDF....and there are a host of uncertainties surrounding it.

Further, the use of XML for Storage does not preclude using RDF/XML in 
the places where it would be most beneficial, just as RDF/XML is used 
for flat files encoded as XML.

Perhaps I could better understand rdf if you explained what the concrete 
goals we want to accomplish with it (over xml) are?

>  I
> would like to make a proposal in the next few days for a schema that 
> may
> work.  I don't think we are in a hurry here to have the perfect DB, nor
> do we expect we will get it right the first time.

No I don't think we should expect to get it right on the first try... 
Given this I'm inclined to start simple and change/add things if we find 
a concrete need for something. Having a simple+adequate design now will 
help us focus on other aspects of storage.... Fewer bugs/questions.

Starting over-abstract and complicated has relegated many projects to 
the dustbin (in gnome the most notable example is Bonobo).

> I think a successful design will work with RDBMS, XML, and RDF, and be
> expressible in XML-Schema, RelaxNG, and RDF-Schema.  We may only start
> with an XML api, and provide and RDF API when the time is right.

Like I said, the fact that accomodating rdf wouldn't be hard w/ the 
existing table format is actually a reason to me to *not* use rdf now, 
but consider it for the future if/when a need arises.

-Seth