[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com> wrote, qouting without attribution:
|> What's there to explain? They can't do ontology without syntax, we
|> can do syntax without ontology, and they can't stand that.
|
| This seems completely opposite to me. Replace "they" with "I", and it
| fits this mailing list.
Hardly.
| Ontologists are happy to use whatever syntax works.
If only the new brand of ontologists did, rather than encourage pushback
on a syntax which happens to have caught the public fancy of late.
| The real issue here is self-declared defenders of markup complaining
| about the need for data models.
Right. There is no inherent need. That's what markup is all about, as a
matter of fact.
| That's certainly what XML-DEV's permathread centers on, and leads to all
| sorts of bizarre comments like "if you want a data model, don't go near
| my beautiful XML! Use ASN.1!"
Or data content notations.
| I think everyone who cares has already heard a million times the story:
| * markup is very useful even for people who do not care about data
| models
Correct.
| * markup in absence of data models has glorious features like entities
| and DTDs
Random potshot. You could fruitfully open a discussion of what DTDs do
and don't, but casual denigration from a position of ignorance isn't
helping you to make a point.
| * markup is misunderstood and underappreciated
And then some. The Clue Quotient has had a downward trend for quite a
while now.
| * people who can understand and appreciate markup are saltier than you
If you insist.
| Years have passed, and syntax and data model are coexisting peacefully.
Glad to hear it. Leave well enough alone.
|
