• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• Subject: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:28:49 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3E9EEE64.A2620F83@m...>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030417182626.00aa37c0@p...> <3E9EEE64.A2620F83@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Roger L. Costello wrote:
>  
> Thus, without a-priori agreement my application is able to process a
> trading partner's document!  /Roger

Ahh. Yet there's agreement on OWL (or how will you infer?). There's 
agreement on the query language semantics (or how will you ask the 
question?). There's agreement on syntaxes (or how could you inspect 
what the trading partner sent?).  There's agreement on a name as 
denotating a vocabulary  (or how will we make sense to each other 
when we point at things?).

Not to say such agreement is bad (and this is great stuff you've 
been doing lately), certainly there's a late binding, but claiming 
there's been no a priori agreement strikes me as misleading.

Bill de hÓra
--
Propylon
www.proylon.com

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

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRigor Mortis"
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to AvoidSyntacticRigor Mortis"
• Next by thread: Why Use OWL?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread