W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: review of XML in 10 points [was: AGENDA...]

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 06:05:55 -0500 (EST)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: <connolly@w3.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <janet@w3.org>, <bert@w3.org>, <em@w3.org>, <liam@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112070549420.25392-100000@tux.w3.org>

(-cc: webont wg; +cc: public archive list)

I'm reasonably happy with the current text, and don't see any urgent need
for the WebOnt WG to consider the XML/10pts doc. (Perhaps some WebOnt WG
members might like to contribute to the drafting of the RDF Primer, though?)

Anyway, nitpicking (with an eye to the rdf primer as target doc):

	'true knowledge' - is there any other kind (apart from
	non-propositional, which rdf/webont doesn't really
	attempt to capture...)

	'collections of meanings' - I prefer to avoid physicalist
	metaphors for meaning. Talking about meaning as a type of thing or
	a type of stuff only confuses. You can't count it; and you can't
	weigh it either... But you can count (XML-encoded) claims about
	the proper/appropriate use of vocabulary. Meaning itself isn't
	downloadable, collectable... only (as per the final sentence)

Grumbles aside, this is useful text...


On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Here is a stab at a replacement:
> XML provides syntax for W3C's RDF, a language for expressing metadata
> (information about information).  RDF is the first step towards the
> Semantic Web, a web where not just uninterpreted data is passed between
> traditional applications, but instead one where self-describing
> information, and eventually true knowledge, can be transferred between
> autonomous agents---programs that reside in the web and that can cooperate
> with other such agents to achieve ad hoc tasks without preexisting
> agreements between them concerning the meaning of the data they exchange.
> To communicate such information, mechanisms for agreeing on the meanings of
> terms are needed, just as people need to have agreement on the meanings of
> the words they employ in their communication.  Collections of meanings for
> terms in a certain area (from "shopping" to "manufacturing") are called
> ontologies and are a necessary part of the Semantic Web.  RDF, ontologies,
> and the representation of meaning needed so that computers can bettter help
> people do work are all topics of W3C's Semantic Web Activity.
> I've tried to skirt fairly close to my hype limit, as this is, after all,
> sort of a press release.  I'm certainly not totally happy with this
> paragraph.  It is rather hype-y for my taste, and may have too little about
> XML in it for an ``XML in 10 Points'' document.  The introduction of
> ontologies also does not flow as well as I would like.
> peter
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 06:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:03 UTC