Lists Home |
Date Index |
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Roger L. Costello) writes:
> >Thus, without a-priori agreement my application is able to process a
> >trading partner's document!
> Provided you picked the same ontological framework as the sender, sure.
> All this does is kick the a priori agreement up a level, usually to
> supposed experts.
Precisely, Simon. This is why I've always been an advocate of such an
approach in relatively closed systems, but I'm not sure about its realism on
My application understands:
- "subclassOf" since it's part of the OWL vocabulary
- "Camera" since my application was constructed to understand this
These are just what I call anchors of authority in my writings and
presentations. In the Sun project where we're putting this stuff to work,
it's all about authority, and this authority comes directly from the
organizational hierarchy. It works when someone can mandate an ontological
framework. On there Web there is no hierarchy, so it seems that there are too
many undecidable problems of human nature.
Or is saying this the same thing as saying "Hypertext will never scale
globally" in the mid 80s? I guess time will tell.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Gems From the [Python/XML] Archives - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/09/py-xm
Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
Use internal references in XML vocabularies - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerw
EXSLT by example - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-exslt.html
The worry about program wizards - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7238
Use rdf:about and rdf:ID effectively in RDF/XML - http://www-106.ibm.com/develo