Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Agreed - something like the SAF
Exactly, that's what we use.
> > How come you don't see significant benefits in this?
> Sorry - poor use of english on my part - my current thinking is that
> there are indeed significant benefits to be obtained by this approach.
OK, in that case I agree!
> As you and the DSTC article have pointed out, there is
> overlap between
> RDF and Schema - so how do you demarcate between the 2? The
> dstc article
> proposes a set of guidelines to follow so that overlap or
> duplication of
> semantic information does not occur (which whilst being a
> more immediate
> solution; I don't feel it is ideal). The other approach is
> the one you
> suggest here - a hybrid parser. The DSTC article raised this
> as well. You'll still get conflicts - but maybe they can be managed?
So in the end, at least one person agrees with me. It's nice to know you're
out there! :-)