other formats (Re: [Dev] 4Suite RDF and ZOD)

[Bill de hÓra]

David McCusker wrote:

> The phrase "RDF-based PIM" makes it sound like RDF is somehow pervasive
> in the architecture so it cannot be replaced with something else. I didn't
> get the idea this was the long term desire.  Other ways of writing content
> persistently might join Morgan's RDF prototype.

Perhaps this is what happens when you specify technologies as 
requirements ahead of use cases.


> To the extent the discussion focuses exclusively on RDF, I find it hard
> to think about alternatives when descriptions of them here might meet with
> early rejection from not fitting current expectations.

See above - RDF is something of a requirement, so are Python, 
Jabber, et al.


> I'd be interested in discussion of what must be represented persistently
> without diving right into a particular encoding, since it brings a lot
> of technology specific policy (the RDF way to do things) to the table
> when folks might productively discuss Chandler needs in isolation.
> 
> It seems rather clear all the interfaces to storage will be Python based,
> using a object database style of interaction between app code and
> storage backend.  But this need not dictate the storage technology, at
> least not very precisely.  RDF could easily have peers.
> 
> Note I'm not advocating folks use anything related to what I've done in
> the past.  I'm just interested in discussing the input parameters to choice
> of storage technology, rather than assuming a choice as given.

RDF isn't a storage technology, if that is what you're suggesting. 
It's closer to an interchange format. Although it is not an 
interlingua - someone will have to design an ontology or PIM 
knowledge format using RDF for that.

Saying 'we're using RDF' is a bit like saying 'we're using BNF', in 
much the same way that saying we're using XML doesn't mean that much 
until you create a language with it. In Chandler's case it would 
have made more sense to say 'we're using DAML'.

Bill de hÓra