- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:59:51 +0100
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 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.
>
[...]
>
> So, should they be using rdfs/daml? Why?
>
I had a similar experience last week, although my friends seemed to be
better disposed towards semantic web technology and less committed to XML
Schema.
But I felt that to make a convincing case for the semantic web technologies,
those tehcnologies need to be more than just a (in)convenient language for
exchanging data (XML does that).
The example that came up, was my friend had graphs in his data (call graphs
from a reverse engineering project). He was trying to get the RDF
visualization tools to draw these graphs nicely.
It struck me, that if we had good seemless implementations of DAML+OIL with
RDF then we could add DAML+OIL axioms combining a schema for his call graphs
with the schema for the visualization tools input in such a way that there
could be a clear and clean separation of concerns:
i.e. a picture like:
[ My application ] [ ]
[ ] ==> [ application data ]
[ ] [ ]
[ application schema ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ DAML+OIL ontology ]
[ linking axioms ]
[ ]
[tool schema ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ generic tool ] [ ]
[ e.g. graph viz ] <=== [ tool input ]
[ ] [ ]
With appropriate tools and implementatations it should just be "shake 'n'
bake".
I still think we've a way to go as a community before we can evangelise
effectively.
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 05:00:17 UTC