- From: <jbarkley@nist.gov>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:16:55 -0400
- To: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, jbarkley@nist.gov
Bill, To your point: > A lot of the counter arguments to these statements come > down to: > I) if you try to perform semantically-based KE/KR/KD > with XML-only, > you will have a lot more code to write & maintain > YOURSELF - and much > of it will reproduce what you'd get automatically using > RDF++. I would add that not only is a matter of specialized code for each schema (or collections of schemas), there is also the supporting theoretical work for the schemas' specialized reasoner implementations. It's kind of handy to know that a reasoner will reach a conclusion after a finite amount of time. There is 15 years of work in Description Logic to support the algorithms within RDF++ reasoners. For example, one knows that OWL DL reasoners, e.g., racer, will stop. Even if some don't care about subsumption (i.e., which classes are subclasses of others, and which individuals belong to which classes), I would think that everyone would care about higher quality. Those who choose XML, UML, or Relational DBs (for whatever reason) can benefit from creating an ontological representation of their information model. This ontology can include defined classes representing queries. Automated consistency checking of this ontology greatly increases assurance that the information model is correct. jb
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2006 13:17:12 UTC