Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
[Roger L. Costello] > The point that I was trying to make in my paper was: > > Should the semantic definition (2.1) be: > (a) hardcoded and buried within each application, > or, should it be: > (b) declaratively stated in a separate document, > using a standard, well-defined vocabulary (i.e., OWL). > > I argued for the later, (b). > I think that Walter's point could be boiled down to this (not really meaning to speak for him so I hope I am not taking his name in vain!) - There may not be "the" semantic definition, but rather many that are not fully congruent. No matter what semantic classification you set up, some application might know better for its purposes. Therefore, make sure to leave enough info in the document that such an application would be able to do its job. Well, even if that is not what Walter would say, I think there is a lot in it. OTOH, both sides can coexist - why not? Cheers, Tom P
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