Hi All, > So RDF = UML 4.0? :-)
At the OMG there is a proposed Ontology Definition Metamodel that IBM and SandPiper are submitting that takes an excellent look at this issue. cheers, Michael Michael Miller Lead Software Developer Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit www.rosettabio.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Jain > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:38 AM > To: public-semweb-lifesci > Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Meeting Notes Feb 27, 2006 > > > > Tom Stambaugh wrote: > > It seems to me that RDF helps us describe and model the > structure of our > > data. In my view, we'll then *use* this RDF-derived > description and model to > > build relational databases that hold said data. In this > worldview, the > > existence of the RDF description then helps us keep the > dynamic models -- > > written in Java, Python or whatever -- in synch with the underlying > > relational descriptions, kept in relational DB's like MySql > and Oracle. > > So RDF = UML 4.0? :-) > > But beware the "impedance mismatch"... > > I have to admit that most of the code I work with is still > "static". This > is inefficient, especially if your data model has some complexity and > changes frequently, but generic data models can be rather > difficult to work > with (even if there is generated code to ease the pain). > Nevertheless I > hope to gradually replace code that is tied to the data model > with generic > code, especially for lower-level infrastructure such as > database storage, > querying, serialization etc. > > > >