[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
> >> There is - or should be - a lot of room for markup applications
> >> without the "Knowledge Technology" claims piling on.
> >
> >To be fair there is - or should be - a lot of room for data
> processing
> >applications without the markup claims piling on.
>
> If you're going to use markup, you need to think about
> markup. If you're doing data processing and don't give a
> damn about markup, there's probably something better than
> markup out there you should be using.
>
> I'm not using knowledge technologies, so I don't feel
> obligated to think about them. If I start working in OWL or
> anything heavy-duty in RDF, I'd feel obligated.
>
> The kinds of labels used in XML don't require such theory,
> IMHO. While it's helpful to understand the relational
> calculus to normalize data for storage in relational
> databases, there's also a level where you can do
> normalization (I call it "information demolition") without
> ever getting into the calculus.
>
> Hell, I don't think we've begun to figure out what we can do
> with the syntax. Rushing forward into semantic theory seems
> really premature.
If you're not going to have semantics then why do you need syntax ?
|
