Re: Re: Syntax + object model
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > jonathan@o... (Jonathan Borden) writes: > >What I am saying is that you are not making -- what I consider -- a > >fair or valid statement about ontologies *in general* as opposed to > >the above two projects. > > I disagree, but since you cut my discussion of specific ontologies, > there isn't much further to say. Hang out at knowledge tech conferences > and listen, and you'll find plenty of rhetorical overreach. I'll be the > jerk reading Feyerabend in the corner. Since I've not ever been to a KT conference, I'll take your word for it -- on the other hand similar rhetorical overreach was common in the heyday of XML conferences as well. In neither case does it mean that there isn't a core reality to both technologies. > > >For what I consider a significant class of problems, ontologies *are* > >the right answer for vocabulary development for XML. (e.g., see: > >http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn) > > Sure, for word searches, that's great. If I just want to mark up a > document or an invoice, I'm not nearly as excited about that vision. If the documents are components of a patient's healthcare record, I get pretty excited about that vision. Similarly folks like John Cowan might get excited about similarly marking up news stories related to heathcare. The National Library of Medicine has done a great job 'marking up' biomedical scientific articles using such a vision (i.e.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed), now you may call that 'word search' but that is what google etc. are all about -- which alot of folks find pretty important -- of course I am not claiming (hardly) that ontologies encompass all of computer science, just to point out that there is a large and widely acknowledged as important class of problems that benefit from an ontologic approach. Since those problems also lend themselves to using XML as a document interchange format, the intersection between XML and ontologies is significant. > > >When you write about > >"ontologists" coming 'round xml-dev, I wonder who you are talking > >about? I don't consider myself an "ontologist" though I'm involved > >with ontologies -- I don't know of any real ontologists who post > >regularly on xml-dev, though perhaps there are a few who read it. > > I suspect 'real' ontologists have better things to do. Still, about > once a month, we get people here who talk about RDF as the right way to > do vocabularies. Roger Costello's recent piece on OWL was fairly > memorable, and it's been a popular trend lately. Are you suggesting that Roger's posts are offtopic? > Maybe it's just the > latest version of RDF condescension toward XML? > It is an all too common misconception that RDF is about ontologies. Admittedly there are relationships between RDF Schema and OWL, but the primary relationship between _RDF_ and OWL is that OWL is a language encoded in RDF _syntax_. You might gasp at that choice of syntax -- and it has been a somewhat controversial one as evidenced by discussions of the OWL WG -- but nonetheless RDF and hence RDF/XML is the official syntax in which the OWL language is interchanged. There are other presentation syntaxes for OWL including non-RDF XML (see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/att-0295/01-OWL-XM L-Schemas.html) In any case I hardly detect any sort of "RDF condescension toward XML" in Roger's posts. I *have* heard XML condescension among discussions involving senior computer scientists who, for example, prefer s-expressions etc., but this is a really tough group -- what can one say? *** Jonathan *** I usually chide them that if the world really cared what they had to say, it would already be using Lisp :-))) **** **** I can say this (in jest) as a former Lisp hacker (so calm down)
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