[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:50 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Mark Baker; Elliotte Rusty Harold; XML Developers List
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the
> semantic web mega-permathread thing)
>
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> >For this to work (a) every description of a person must use
> the same data model & (b) there needs to exist a mapping from
> your applications data model to that of the unknown schema
> available somewhere. This seems fairly optimistic to me and
> highly unlikely in the geenral case in practice.
> >
> >
> a) This is *explicity* untrue -- read the OWL requirements doc.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/
A requirements document doesn't mean anything. Show me how the spec
achieves this. Show me how if I have a data model where a person is
identified by [SocialSecurityNumber, FullName] and you have a data model
where a person is a pair of [FirstName, LastName, DateOfBirth] we can
interoperate.
As for wisdom of using requirements documents as argumentation points,
I'd love to see someone use http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-schema-req as
a way to argue about how various things are possible in W3C XML Schema
simply because they are in the requirements doc.
> >
> If you read the WebOnt use cases and requirements document,
> that is explicitly not the case -- so perhaps what you say is
> true for "Semantic Web proponents" who haven't been involved
> with the actual development of semantic web standards.
See above for the pointlessness of trying to argue with "We have use
cases and requirements that say this should be possible".
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
