Re: [DotGNU]Implement RDF in a Universal Data Structure

[Seth Johnson]

Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> I apologise for being skeptical, but there are many alternative 'universal
> data structures' and things like scalability and interoperability are hard
> to demonstrate behind closed doors - this stuff needs to work distributed on
> the web.
> 
> Additionally, whatever the virtues of the u.d.s. the current level of
> adoption will influence future adoption - so for example although I'm sure
> Lazy Software's "Associative Model of Data" is wonderful, I can't see their
> model taking the place of the relational DB or RDF model in the foreseeable
> future.


It actually goes beyond that in this case, as my goal relates to certain
political objectives, such as eliminating content control -- the aim is to
get certain specific *apps* of the server in use rapidly.  That will happen
only after the merits of the server itself are shown.  Unfortunately, an
undercover approach is the best way in this case.


> Personally I'd opt for RDF as the base model as it has pretty well worked
> out theoretical (web-friendly) foundations and isn't doing badly
> implementation-wise. If your system is as versatile as you suggest, then it
> should be possible to bridge easily to it, perhaps plugging it in as an
> alternative backend to RDF..?


Yes, that's exactly what I say.

The main point is that CTP makes a lot of DotGNU's and GNU's objectives much
easier to address.  Though it actually makes the whole web services arena
passe, because CTP is a universal application server concept, not just a way
to model information.  It provides for universal functionality, which other
data servers aren't geared toward -- the notion of a universal atomic
application.


Seth Johnson


-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.