[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Roger L. Costello]
> The point that I was trying to make in my paper was:
>
> Should the semantic definition (2.1) be:
> (a) hardcoded and buried within each application,
> or, should it be:
> (b) declaratively stated in a separate document,
> using a standard, well-defined vocabulary (i.e., OWL).
>
> I argued for the later, (b).
>
I think that Walter's point could be boiled down to this (not really meaning
to speak for him so I hope I am not taking his name in vain!) -
There may not be "the" semantic definition, but rather many that are not
fully congruent. No matter what semantic classification you set up, some
application might know better for its purposes. Therefore, make sure to
leave enough info in the document that such an application would be able to
do its job.
Well, even if that is not what Walter would say, I think there is a lot in
it. OTOH, both sides can coexist - why not?
Cheers,
Tom P
|
