[
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?
Whether or not this is what Walter meant, I agree with it wholeheartedly. Any
annotation system, including RDF is but one tool in the toolbox, and not a
panacea. It's also, more apropos, one configuration in the kaleidoscope and
not the entire Jacobean product.
--
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
l.html
Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk17/index.html
Use internal references in XML vocabularies - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerw
orks/xml/library/x-tipvocab.html
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
perworks/xml/library/x-tiprdfai.html
|
