W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: common standard ontology

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:07:43 +0300
Message-ID: <001801c9d252$9ea933d0$a104810a@homepc>
To: "carmen" <_@whats-your.name>
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Carmen wrote: ">> advocates a common standard ontology

> is HTML not a standard ontology of document elements?"
Certainly not. It is mere a web page metadata.
Metadata characterize the data, not the entity (content) which is described 
by the data.
A standard ontology is all about the world's fundamental entities and 
relationships, and how they are formally represented as computer codes and 
algorithms.

Azamat Abdoullaev


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "carmen" <_@whats-your.name>
To: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: common standard ontology


>> advocates a common standard ontology
>
> is HTML not a standard ontology of document elements?
>
> personally i'd advocate gutting it to just <div>s. then you could get rid 
> of the SGML/XML baggage/overhead/ugliness in the syntax entirely
>
> we'd prob ably be still figuring out agreeble ways to map sexps() to 
> on-screem/mem DOMish trees, instead of have a usable web
>
> or justifying the validity of RDFa as a use case enable to various gods 
> instead of dragging vcard's to our email apps..
>
>
>> If any readers think that they have an ideal ontology in mind, I'd
>> like to ask one question:  Do you believe that you have sufficient
>> hype and money to make your preference become the new mainstream?
>
> how would one create something like the web without a hype machine like 
> the web to catapult it into instant ubiquity?
>
>> John Sowa
>>
>>
> 
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 16:08:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT