[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Miles Sabin wrote:
> > ... The ontologic approach is such a declarative approach -- for
example,
> > nowhere in the OWL specifications is *any* writing about a "processing
> > model". You may consider such ontologic descriptions as specious
> > abstractions, but the whole point of this excercize is that much can
> > be done *without specifying any processing*.
>
> Horror! Programmers prefer processes (which at least move around a bit)
> to cold dead propositions!
That is true, but we need to remember that the XML community is not
exclusively composed of programmers -- the concept of marking up a document
originated with folks who read and edit documents.
>
> Perhaps when you're done with the Tractatus you could move on to the
> Investigations ;-)
>
This is hardly an esoteric philosophical argument. My interest in ontologies
originates in my interest in more precisely writing and classifying medical
documents (which are at the moment largely handwritten) and allowing these
documents to be better stored and retrieved and transmittent from one
location to another (e.g. a family doctor to a specialist).
The process by which the brain reads the document is not much relevent to
how the documents are marked up.
Jonathan
|
