|
|
|
|
|
|
by namedgraph
1965 days ago
|
|
|
Relational model, XML/JSON etc. simply do not have a generic merge operation defined the same way as RDF does. This can be proved with pen and paper. And you still haven't addressed my second point about widespread industry use. It seems that SemWeb haters/sceptics always try to avoid this, why could that be?.. |
|
|
Who cares? This is not a problem anyone has, which is precisely why so few formats have a solution.
"widespread industry use"
It's not in "widespread" use. It's in niche use, and it's been in niche use for about two decades, and shows no sign of escaping that niche.
Human perception is a bit broken here. You show a list of 100 users and it looks like a tech is in "widespread use"... because you don't intuit that the market has hundreds of thousands of users, if not millions. (I'm being conservative. It's almost certainly millions.) RDF is niche. You can comfortably read an effectively-complete list of users over a coffee break. Try that trick with JSON.
Also, to be honest, referring to "haters" rather proves my point about just how quickly insults get trotted out. You almost literally just said "RDF!" with no further substantive conversation exactly the way I mentioned! I know about RDF. I used it ~2005 when working on some Mozilla stuff. It had every opportunity to overtake JSON, and was never in any danger of it.
In fact my current job for the last few weeks has been working on a massively cross-team data lake in the company I work for... and nobody is talking about RDF. Not me (and I do know it, actually), not any vendor that might provide useful technology, not any vendor that consumes data to provide reports on it (nobody consumes RDF in this space), nobody. Nominally a core use case for "semanticness", and it's a complete non-starter.