- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:13:09 -0400
- To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Actually, the principle seems simply to be whether you are in a position to force everyone to play to the same tune, period. Open or closed system may be a factor in determining whether you're in that position or not, but it's not the only factor, and may play no role at all. For example, the US Internal Revenue Service is in a position to insist that US taxpayers use whatever forms the IRS tells us to. They do provide for both paper and Internet submissions, so there's some flexibility, but what I'm waiting for is an official IRS tax ontology (reinforced by IRS-specified rules providing the official definitions of all the calculations), and tax returns described by RDF/OWL triples using terms and calculations from that ontology. Want to start a pool on when we'll be able to do that (for real)? --Frank Roger L. Costello wrote: > Mike Daconta wrote: > > >>I strongly disagree with this principle as it reduces the ability to >>robustly validate documents. The principle you are expressing is >>useful when the instance documents are subject to change. That is >>not the case for all instance documents in all vertical domains. >>Thus the principle is only valid on one side of the change spectrum >>and cannot be considered a universal principle. >> > > In a closed sytem you may be able to force everyone to play to the same > tune. Expanding/changing the tune wreaks havoc on everyone. In an open > system such as the WWW it's unreasonable to expect everyone to > harmonize. Expect disharmony. /Roger > > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 17:50:26 UTC