Re: The stupidest design I ever saw
Date: 5 Apr 2006 18:20:12 -0700
Message-ID: <1144286412.061028.137180_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
JOG wrote:
Andy's posting history doesn't leave any doubt that he is serious.
Anyway, the link to RDF turned out to be informative. Here is what I
found:
<rdf:RDF
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="MotorVehicle">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="PassengerVehicle">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="Truck">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="Van">
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2006 11:17:49 -0700, "Marshall Spight"
> > <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >the real world is tree structured.
> >
> > No, the real world is graph structured. Tress are just a limited special
> > case of graphs.
> >
> > Another advantage of RDF over XML's data model!
>
> you are joking right?
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xml:base="http://example.org/schemas/vehicles">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="MiniVan">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Van"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
The folks who wrote this apparently have no idea that graph is defined by the set of nodes and edges between them. They wrap their naive understanding what the graph is into XML cludgy syntax and claim it to be a superior solution. To what problem may I ask? Received on Thu Apr 06 2006 - 03:20:12 CEST