• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: White Paper -"Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:21:48 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1025-96441CAE710411D794E90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]><3E9EFA88.23BCA470@m...>

[Roger L. Costello]

> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
> > costello@m... (Roger L. Costello) writes:
> > >Thus, without a-priori agreement my application is able to process a
> > >trading partner's document!
> >
> > Provided you picked the same ontological framework as the sender,
> > sure. All this does is kick the a priori agreement up a level, usually
> > to supposed experts.
>
> The namespace of the elements indicates the Ontology.  As I mentioned
> earlier, an Ontology can evolve in a distributed fashion.  There need
> not be a centralized committee of experts.

Hmm, this is likely to lead to contradictions, and then there will be
trouble!  I am not that clear how good idea it will be in practice to allow
distributed ontology development, even though at first glance it seems like
such a plus.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Syntax vs semantics
• Next by Date: RE: What is the data here?
• Previous by thread: Re: NIH in multiple facets
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread