Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFutu
At 09:21 AM 12/18/00 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote: >Then again, it depends on what you need from "ontology". If, as I >think Martin Bryan suggests, you want a complete reasoning engine from >first principles, then you'd better be channelling Choamsky and >Wittgenstein and exorcising Deridda because you're gonna need a _lot_ >more firepower than constraints, address _or_ subject identity. Heh. Exorcising Derrida is a lot harder than it seems - too many computing folks seem to forget (or deride) that. I'd love to hear more folks taking the contingent nature of communications, including XML communications, more seriously - as an accepted foundation, not as a problem. There's more going on than just nailed-down semantics and well-understood content, and there always will be in any large-scale project. Local understandings - as Walter Perry has made clear a number of times - really do matter. Maybe it's frightening to people who want something more solid to hold on to, but solid often seems to equal brittle... Fortunately, I think tools will evolve to reflect this more flexible world, even the tools created with 'one true ontology' in mind. Schematron's a fine start! Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format