[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote,
> Micah Dubinko wrote:
> > Isn't that the whole crux of the problem? If the problem is that
> > two databases (or web pages) use a different name for "zip code",
> > the solution is to add a third (Q)name, that both must agree upon?
>
> That's one option, but it is very heavy-handed and not practical in
> all cases. What do you do about pre-existing data sources that you
> don't control? What if you can't convince the owners of these data
> sources to work together?
>
> I prefer the other option. I can, either locally or globally, make a
> statement that says that these two things are really the same and it
> is _as if_ they had standardized but without the effort. Then I can
> save my energy to standardize the really hard cases like across
> disparate addressing schemes or protocols, or when the mapping is
> more complex than a simple renaming.
I prefer the other option too.
But it's not clear to me what this has to do with RDF or DAML. Once
you've defined a mapping between the vocabularies (and if you want to
get fancy, between the choreographies too), and what useful job is
there left for assertions and reasoners to do?
Cheers,
Miles
|
