- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:09:58 -0700
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
They should not be using RDF, RDFSchema or DAML. In fact, most people will use XML to encode and exchange data and would like to do everything, including inferencing on their XML documents. We can provide mappings from XML to triple-based representations. In my personal view, this special syntax -- RDF -- will and has hurt the acceptance of the Semantic Web effort by mainstream industry. All the best, Ashok =========================================================== -----Original Message----- From: R.V.Guha [mailto:guha@guha.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:24 PM To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS I was talking yesterday to a friend whose is working with some geologists who want to share data. They are of course planning on using xml and are in the process of writing up their xml schemas. They have applications that do all kinds of sophisticated analysis on this data. They have no need of doing the kinds of inferences that rdfs/daml enables. Their apps do computations that are far more complex and it would be easy for them to modify their apps to make it do the few (if any) inferential facilities rdfs/daml offers, if the need arises. I tried to make a case for rdf/rdfs/daml, but given the substantially more tools available for xml/xml schema and their lack of interest in simple inferences, I couldn't in good faith push too hard for rdf/rdfs/daml. So, should they be using rdfs/daml? Why? guha
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:09:59 UTC