Lists Home |
Date Index |
Even if tedious, it isn't a bad idea, Paul.
As noted earlier to Mohammed, XML doesn't provide
semantics, and despite controversies, two XML
systems for processing the same vocabulary that
behave or render differently are a bad thing for
the unsuspecting mammal. As Tim Bray said to the
X3D WG a few years ago, it's easy to do the XML
but the hard part is creating the objects. A
rendering and behavior specification should in
many cases, accompany any XML vocabulary specification
where the expectation is that a standard set of
objects will consume the XML. This is what the
X3D WG committed to and provided with conformance
Even with the wrinkles left, an implementor of an X3D system
stands a much better chance of producing a truly conformant
browser and the X3D authors and their customers get a
much better experience for the effort.
If OWL makes that better, it can be worth the trouble, IMO.
From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Jun 17, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sumner Downey wrote:
> Maybe the W3C should eat its own dog food and write up
> their specs in OWL. Believe it or not i'm being serious!
For what it's worth, the Web Services Architecture final WG note
included an OWL formalization of what we were trying to say about web
services concepts / relationships.