Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFutu
 Apparently Uche Ogbuji wrote (in a message I missed): > >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. Whilst I am ploughing through Wittgenstein whenever I get a minute at present I actually said nothing about reasoning engines, with very good reasons. What I am asking for is a clear definition of terms. As Len Bullard pointed out, http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html defines ontology as: "definitions associate the names of entities in the universe of discourse (e.g., classes, relations, functions, or other objects) with human-readable text describing what the names mean, and formal axioms that constrain the interpretation and well-formed use of these terms". The key phrase in this is "with human-readable text describing what the names mean". Without this we are unable to determine anyone's meaning after a few weeks, once we've lost the original context of the message (as anyone returning to the archive for this list server and reading any one of the messages in the middle of next year will soon find out). The problem is that neither RDF or Topic Maps have a requirement of the supply of any human-readable descripition of the meaning of any referenced subject. Martin Bryan 
|
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
|
|||||||||
