• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:59:49 -0400
• In-reply-to: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPGEENCJAA.danny666@v...>

danny666@v... (Danny Ayers) writes:
>What is to stop this particular bit of expertise crossing domains?
>Where is the line of separation between one knowledge base and the
>other? If they are using a common set of languages that allow for
>consistent logical inference, surely the inference will be valid in
>either domain.

Wow.  This is where I really have to wonder if OWL is Karl Popper's
revenge on the world, a naive view of useful information as a collection
of facts, "objective knowledge".

Hmm... Popper died September 17, 1994, and the W3C started up in October
1994.  Maybe I'm not completely wacky - maybe the W3C is just taking up
the questions Popper valued using philosophical assumptions about the
nature of knowledge he would probably quite like.

Oh well.  Too far from markup - can we talk about elements and
attributes again?

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>

• References:
  • RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Statistical vs "semantic web" approaches to making sense of the Net
• Next by Date: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Previous by thread: RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Next by thread: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread