- 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