RE: Syntax + object model
> "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote: > > | Except that I get fed up with ontologists who keep coming round and > | asking why we bother with this mere syntactical stuff, and explaining > | it gets more than a little irksome. > > What's there to explain? They can't do ontology without syntax, we can do > syntax without ontology, and they can't stand that. This seems completely opposite to me. Replace "they" with "I", and it fits this mailing list. Ontologists are happy to use whatever syntax works. They used interchange syntax like KIF before there was XML, and now they use XML when it makes sense. The real issue here is self-declared defenders of markup complaining about the need for data models. That's certainly what XML-DEV's permathread centers on, and leads to all sorts of bizarre comments like "if you want a data model, don't go near my beautiful XML! Use ASN.1!" I think everyone who cares has already heard a million times the story: * markup is very useful even for people who do not care about data models * markup in absence of data models has glorious features like entities and DTDs * markup is misunderstood and underappreciated * people who can understand and appreciate markup are saltier than you Years have passed, and syntax and data model are coexisting peacefully. But there are still those people who will hear the words "data model" and will launch into attack like a mother bear defending her young. -J
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