RE: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mo
Peter.Hunsberger@s... (Hunsberger, Peter) writes: >If you're not going to have semantics then why do you need syntax ? It's not a question of whether things will have semantics - even things supposedly without semantics tend to acquire meaning. It's a question of what kind of value you get from standardizing semantics. I see lots of value for standardizing a core syntax, and some value for standardizing some semantics. I see negative return on efforts to standardize semantics and semantic mechanisms generally. (Locally, you're welcome to standardize all you want.) The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty strongly that some folks see semantics as a way out of a syntactic trap. I believe those folks are fooling themselves at best. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
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