- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:41:07 +0000
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-tag@w3.org
At 12:30 20/02/05 -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: >... >Taken together, the above represent a proposal to focus the finding less >on the details of particular XML constructions, and more on the general >versioning and evolution strategies that are likely to be essential to the >Web's and XML's continued success. ... -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0186.html I agree with most if not all of Noah's message. I've also read an earlier version of Dave Orchard's note, and agree that it is a most positive contribution. Below, I indicate a use-case that may support Noah's view: There's a particular issue of versioning/evolution that has been exercising the group I'm working with, exemplified by [1]. We are, among other things, using ontologies to capture domain knowledge applied to life-science research data, especially with respect to bioinformatics and systems biology. In this field, the domain knowledge is changing -- this is, after all, the purpose of research work -- and ontologies must evolve to accommodate the growing knowledge base. Currently, ontologies are used by life-scientists in a number of different syntactic forms (OWL, XML, non-web), so the problem of ontology evolution would usefully be addressed in a syntax-independent manner (though the approach contemplated by [1] is OWL/RDF-focused). If it's not too great a stretch to achieve, a finding that can accommodate approaches to evolution of semantic information could be helpful. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swls-ws/2004Sep/0012.html ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 15:24:10 UTC