> > I won't comment on the success or failure of RDF, but it 
> seems to me 
> > that it's highly abstract, not necessarily highly generic.
> 
> Ok, I'll bite.  What's the difference?  (Seriously...)

Excellent question. I'll hazard an answer.

The class of "everything that moves" is generic (because it embraces lots of
different kinds of thing), but it's not abstract (because it's a simple
partitioning of all things based on a simple observable property).
Abstraction demands more than dividing objects into categories; it demands a
creative leap, involving the discovery of new ways of looking at things,
yielding new insights.

I won't defend that distinction to the death, but it's a try...

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php