OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-pe rmathr

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread 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 
testing next.  

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:mc@xegesis.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. 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS