Why RDF?
Dare is asking what benefit RDF has over XML plus namespaces, schema, and XSLT. More accurately, Dare is pointing to Eliotte, who asks those questions.I will answer with a question: Why did WinFSchoose a?triple? based data model, rather thanXML infosets or even relational?The underlying storage is relational data model, and we have plenty of experience with doing XML infoset (tree) data model, so either option should have been less risky. It’s not as if we didn’t spend lots of resources evaluating the other options, so why did we reject XML and relational in favor of ?triples??
I think people underestimate the importance of a triple-based data model for many scenarios. Even without ?inference? and ontology mapping, the triples database is a huge win. WinFS is going to enable numerous application scenarios that simply are not practical to implement with today’s technology. WinFS is not based on RDF, of course, but they both share similar data models. And, while the scope of WinFS is local and ?Semantic Web? is global, the scenarios are not that different. When you start to imagine what it would be like to extend WinFS stores to publish and synchronize data with one another, oralternately imagine a ?personal semantic web?, you can begin to see that the visions have some serious overlap.
Note that I didn’t really explain ?why RDF?, since I’ve done that enough times already. I’m just making an observation that, if you believe that WinFS has value, and if you believe that WinFS made the right decision by going with a triple-based data model, then you already understand ?why RDF?.
~
Who knew that you can write custom calendar providers for Outlook? Sometimes I’m fooled by our critics into thinking that Microsoft embraces lock-in.