• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, "XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:20:12 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1025-04C44830782A11D793D60003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> Wow.  This is where I really have to wonder if OWL is Karl Popper's
> revenge on the world, a naive view of useful information as a collection
> of facts, "objective knowledge".

Revenge? Is this a problem? :-) Indeed it is common practice to informally
refer to a particular collection of triples as a "knowledge base"

>
> Oh well.  Too far from markup - can we talk about elements and
> attributes again?
>

I expect that any statement that is strictly limited to elements and
attributes has already been made, or else is a rehash of another statement
that has already been made, probably originating in the XML 1.0 rec itself
modulo some issues with what really is UNICODE etc...

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Next by Date: duh! Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Previous by thread: RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Next by thread: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread