[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That's what I thought was the case. Yet, how
far can one get reasoning over an imprecise
source such as XML in the wild? Sure, it will
be case by case, but XML does have containment,
names, and attribution, and one can using
document typing to cut down some of the wildness.
This is something like embracing the position
of those who say "XML should be agnostic to
the receiver" combined with a system that
says "sure, but the receiver then gets to
pick interpretive rules and these may be
analogical".
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@virgilio.it]
> >So here is a fun puzzle for the cognoscenti. Can John Sowa's
> >rules be applied to XML using XSLT or am I just taking too few
> >or too many medications? ;-)
> >
> >http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm
> >
> >Or does this require RDF?
>
> Not claiming to be anywhere near coginscenti, but hey Len,
> What the heck can RDF do that is even close to XSLT?
Probably this particular example for a start. The Conceptual Graph model
Sowa uses throughout his work isn't that far removed from the one underlying
RDF. In fact Tim Berners-Lee [1] and others have considered mappings. I'm
sure Analogical Reasoning could be done with XSLT, but you'd have to start
by coming up with some way of representing the arbitrary graph structure of
the entities and relationships first, over which you could apply the
appropriate transformations. That would probably mean reinventing RDF.
Cheers,
Danny.
[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CG.html
|
