- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:00 -0700
- To: Gerard Maas <gerard.maas@alcatel.be>
- CC: RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Gerard Maas wrote: > Sure I'm not modelling the "shouldn't" the right way. I omited all > NS to go home earlier. I know it doesn't make it (but I tried!), > and I see your point: my statement was too general (Friday eve > circumstances). Nevertheless, the idea that taking XML into RDF is > 'narrowing' doesn't stand (my opinion of course). > AFAIK, the "world" of XML and the "world" of RDF are mutually > inclusive. Interesting, I made a graph of this too and put it up side by side wit yours at [1]. Is my graph semantically interoperable with yours -even though it is quite different? The big difference is that in my graph I allow any statement to be an object, so that it is not necessary for me to reify so frequently. This also brings up the question: How are reified statements interoprable with non reified statements? Note that in my graph they are interoperable. And of course that brings up the point - what does semantic interoperablilty really mean (if anything)? [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/Yellow_Snow.html Incidentally, what graphical tool do you use to make your graphs ? Doing these by hand is getting pretty tedious. -- Seth Russell http://RobustAI.net/MyNetwork/index.html http://robustAI.net/MyNetwork/StickeyCyberMolecules.html Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 12:35:46 UTC