Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> wrote: > uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes: > >> There is - or should be - a lot of room for markup applications > >> without the "Knowledge Technology" claims piling on. > > > >To be fair there is - or should be - a lot of room for data > processing > >applications without the markup claims piling on. > > If you're going to use markup, you need to think about > markup. If you're doing data processing and don't give a > damn about markup, there's probably something better than > markup out there you should be using. > > I'm not using knowledge technologies, so I don't feel > obligated to think about them. If I start working in OWL or > anything heavy-duty in RDF, I'd feel obligated. > > The kinds of labels used in XML don't require such theory, > IMHO. While it's helpful to understand the relational > calculus to normalize data for storage in relational > databases, there's also a level where you can do > normalization (I call it "information demolition") without > ever getting into the calculus. > > Hell, I don't think we've begun to figure out what we can do > with the syntax. Rushing forward into semantic theory seems > really premature. If you're not going to have semantics then why do you need syntax ?
|
