• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
• From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:33:01 +0100
• Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@m...>
• In-reply-to: <3E9ECAFE.E13C2F@m...>

At 11:40 17/04/2003 -0400, Roger L. Costello wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>I have written a white paper[1] titled:
>
>    "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
>[1] http://www.xfront.com/avoiding-syntactic-rigor-mortis.html

Says <q>all parties participating in an exchange of data can compose any 
physical expression </q>.

Isn't is necessary for the same grouping to agree terminology?
I guess this is where the human aspects come in?

Take some term, I understand it, David Carlisle understands it. Yet the 
depth of
understanding is miles apart. How to assess each users usage wrt some ... 
standard semantic?

If we attempt to communicate without that shared understanding its going to be
a weak form of communications?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had what appeared to be a strange 
conversation,
which is finally resolved to be two views of the same term.

Is ontology ownership destined to be a stumbling block?

regards DaveP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• References:
  • ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Draft US Government policyon XML Namespaces
• Next by Date: [CfP] 2nd Call for Paper: XML Database Symposium XSym 2003 (co-located with VLDB 2003, Berlin)
• Previous by thread: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread