Re: proposal: Structured Datatypes

At 10:38 PM -0500 11/6/02, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#usecase-multimedia
>
>it seems to me that structured datatypes fall squarely within the charter of
>WebOnt. I mean, gasp, if this is something you are not comfortable doing,
>why would this be an OWL *requirement*

because we didn't think it would be as hard as it is, and we were 
wrong.  Sorry, guess we're not always prescient.

>
>besides, RDFCore *isn't* dealing with XML dataypes (the ones that have XML
>in them a.k.a. XML Schema complexType) and as you say this is an issue that
>we will continue to face over and over until it is properly dealt with. An
>ideal solution would model an XML Schema particle as an owl:Class, but at
>the very least I'd like to be able to talk about pieces of XML e.g. say that
>this is the sameIndividualAs that or that this XML type is the sameClassAs
>that etc.

yes, they're not talking about
them because they're hard - and I don't see why they're easier for us 
than for them?
  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 23:03:22 UTC