Re: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> writes:

> My main point, perhaps too pungently expressed, was to try to make it
> clear that DAML+OIL should not be thought of simply as as a
> sub-initiative of the  RDF effort (in my view, at any rate: and the
> organisers may have their own views, which may well differ from mine.)
> It has its own purposes and goals, and while staying RDF-compliant is
> a tacit recognition of the likely influence of RDF and its importance
> to the future of the 'semantic web', a criticism of DAML from a
> perspective which assumes that RDF is the entire rest of the world
> required short, sharp correction.

A common exchange protocol makes a lot of things easier.

RDF is not the rest of the world. But hopefully, it will be used as a
gateway to the rest of the world.

The conversion between DAML and other ontologies with an rdF interface
would be easier if they could use a common way to express datatypes.

The semantic web:
    http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/0906-xmlweb-tbl/slide9-0.html


RDF needs to be integrated with the XML datatypes.  Shall I take it
that DAML+OIL isn't going to help out on this?


-- 
/ Jonas Liljegren

The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/
Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/

Received on Saturday, 31 March 2001 10:55:59 UTC