[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> [bryan]
> >
> > So I was looking over Owl
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webont-req-20020708/
> >
> > When I found yet another case of interlock with WXSDL(under
> > section-use-cases; R15. Complex data types). The motivations given were
> > compatibility with other standards, and ease of use.
> >
> > Anyone excited about this and think it's a good idea?
> > Anyone over-excited by this and think it's the worst idea since
> > one-dimensional bread?
> > I got a gut reaction that immediately spun me into the second camp, am
> > looking to climb out and learn to smile, smile again.
> >
> I got an immediate reation or two myself. First of all, I can see that
> providing for structured values (as the object of statements) might be quite
> useful. On the other hand, this is probably equivalent to tuples of higher
> arity than RDF uses. So how would it be compatoble iwth RDF?
>
> Second, even granted the above, XML Schema was not designed for knowledge
> representation. So how can you expect its structures to be good for that
> purpose? And if they are not, why require compatibility?
<AOL/>
The tight integration of schema types into DAML+OIL/OWL has always bothered me (not that this should surprise anyone). I don't mind having data typing for RDF, but I think it should be a higher level and layered upon RDF. This made sense for RDFS, I don't see why it doesn't for OWL.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html
|
