- From: Margaret Green <mgreen@nextance.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:32:24 -0700
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Their analyses produce results. These results are assertions. I would model the analytical results. There may be the potential for inferences to be drawn among sets of results - a form of meta-analysis, if you will. Margaret Green -----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 16:33:39 UTC