• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: ANN: White Paper -"Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
• From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@n...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:53:15 +0300
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1025-C342897871AA11D794E90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Organization: Netsmart S.A., Greece
• References: <r01050400-1025-C342897871AA11D794E90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Reply-to: mbatsis@n...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3)Gecko/20030312

I don't get this part of the thread. Semantics dont neccesarily have to 
do with syntax and vice versa. Semantics can be serialized in syntax 
and, as you seem to point out, syntax can be interpreted semantically 
even if it didn't meant to.

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> 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.

XML serializations of RDF based data do avoid one important syntactic 
trap. I mean, because their syntax and extensibility mechanisms are 
semantics-oriented, they are also uniform and thus predictable, offering 
the ability to say anything about anything without having to invent a 
new syntax (XML or other) for every new domain they need to describe.

Cheers,

Manos

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
• Next by Date: FW: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
• Previous by thread: RE: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread