- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:35:58 -0600
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>Dan, > >Most of these comments appear to be improvements, so we'll incoroprate >them into the document. I'll work on a rewording of "the problems with >lack of semantics in XML" to describe specific problems for specific >uses. > >Jeff > > >Dan Connolly wrote: >> >> Our requirements document is going to >> be the first exposure that some folks >> get to our work; I can imagine >> it showing up in Robin Cover's XML >> new stuff; he'll probably grab the abstract: >> >> "This document specifies goals, requirements, and usage scenarios for >> the OWL web ontology language." >> >> I can imagine xml-dev/www-talk folks saying, "er.. >> gee, thanks; now what's an ontology >> language?" >> >> That's elaborated later in the document; let's >> see if there's some text to grab... yes: >> >> Put simply, an ontology is just a set of >> standard vocabularly terms along with some >> formal definitions of the terms. >> >> Lightly edited: >> >> An ontology is vocabularly of terms along >> with some formal definitions of the terms. >> Err.. I'd prefer it if you could avoid using the word 'definition' here. The point being that ontologies only describe, in general, rather than define. If we say that a description is a definition then we can get into all kinds of trouble, eg consider Peter's pseudo-paradox problem which arises from thinking of an RDF description as a *definition* of OWL syntax. <snip> >.....> >> The term ontology may be unfamiliar to many readers of >> this document. >> >> That seems superfluous. I suggest striking it. >> >> This notion of ontologies comes from Artificial Intelligence, >> where ontologies are used to allow heterogeneous systems to >> exchange and reason with information. >> >> I'd suggest either citing specific work in this area >> or striking the reference to Artificial Intelligence. I agree. In any case, you could equally well cite data modelling languages, say; and the basic ideas go back way before AI if you want to get historical, at least to the 1940s and maybe the 1880s. > > >> One of the problems with using ordinary XML is that the >> elements and attributes defined by DTDs or XML Schemas do >> not have any semantics associated with them; >> >> I think a lot of folks in our audience see the lack >> of semantics in XML as a feature, not a problem. >> Even myself: I don't see a lack of semantics in XML >> as a problem with XML, any more than the lack >> of semantics in s-expressions or binary trees >> is a problem. It's an opportunity for developers, but a problem for content providers. Who do we think we are talking to here? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 15:35:50 UTC