Roger L. Costello wrote:
>
> Thus, without a-priori agreement my application is able to process a
> trading partner's document! /Roger
Ahh. Yet there's agreement on OWL (or how will you infer?). There's
agreement on the query language semantics (or how will you ask the
question?). There's agreement on syntaxes (or how could you inspect
what the trading partner sent?). There's agreement on a name as
denotating a vocabulary (or how will we make sense to each other
when we point at things?).
Not to say such agreement is bad (and this is great stuff you've
been doing lately), certainly there's a late binding, but claiming
there's been no a priori agreement strikes me as misleading.
Bill de hÓra
--
Propylon
www.proylon.com
