[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML/RDF

• To: michael.h.kay@n..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML/RDF
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:30:52 -0800
• References: <001801c289ae$4616f660$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Michael Kay wrote:
>...
> 
> It's much more common for two databases to use the same term for
> different concepts.

Yes, as long as names are just raw strings. But when they are URIs that 
can be dereferenced to return semantic schemas, the chance of this goes 
down. They will have chosen to use the same term because they 
specifically _wanted_ to use the same name for the same concept. Of 
course there will still be contradictions but that's a different issue.

> In fact if you can find the same identical concept in two different
> databases then you're on to a winner. Even something simple like
> "date-of-birth" tends to mean "date of birth, as asserted by the
> employee" in one database, and "date of birth, as verified by production
> of a certificate" in another.
> ...

OWL can help to distinguish this. The first could require a reference to 
the employee making the assertion and the latter requires a reference to 
a resource representing the certificate. Once again I'm not saying that 
contradictions and misunderstandings will never arise, just that there 
are tools for helping to detect and avoid them _in some cases_.

  Paul Prescod

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Previous by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: Re: XML/RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread