Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.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.
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
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