>...... >================ >Justifications of Ns & ?s >------------------------- >N> data persistence >N> security >N> xml interfaces >?> internationalization > >are part of the metadata layer of semantic web architecture (RDF), not part >of the ontology layer. I fail to follow this distinction. (I know it is taken from the 'layer cake' slide. I fail to follow it there as well.) RDF, for example, is surely a (simple) ontology language. Do y'all have some idea that metadata is somehow distinct from , and more primitive than, ontology? (?? In what sense?) >RDF might not offer adequate answers yet but the >problems should be fixed there. Maybe xml and internationalization (maybe), but I don't see any way to isolate security and data persistence issues from the ontology 'layer', wherever that happens to be. >There may be internationalization issues that are part of the ontology >layer; but most i18n is in the metadata layer. > >N> ontology-based search >N> ontology querying > >I think these are later work. I would expect standardization of metadata >layer query to precede that of ontology layer query. There is no sign of >metadata layer query standardization so I think WOW-G should duck ontology >query standardization. > >?>user-friendly > >"If you want friendly get a dog" >The language is for machine to machine communication. Friendliness is for >apps on top of it. I tend to agree with that sentiment, though I doubt if it will fly with the DOH (ontology equivalent of DPH) Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Monday, 10 December 2001 15:09:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:39 UTC