|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-pe rmathr
Even if tedious, it isn't a bad idea, Paul. As noted earlier to Mohammed, XML doesn't provide semantics, and despite controversies, two XML systems for processing the same vocabulary that behave or render differently are a bad thing for the unsuspecting mammal. As Tim Bray said to the X3D WG a few years ago, it's easy to do the XML but the hard part is creating the objects. A rendering and behavior specification should in many cases, accompany any XML vocabulary specification where the expectation is that a standard set of objects will consume the XML. This is what the X3D WG committed to and provided with conformance testing next. Even with the wrinkles left, an implementor of an X3D system stands a much better chance of producing a truly conformant browser and the X3D authors and their customers get a much better experience for the effort. If OWL makes that better, it can be worth the trouble, IMO. len From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...] On Jun 17, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Paul Sumner Downey wrote: > > Maybe the W3C should eat its own dog food and write up > their specs in OWL. Believe it or not i'm being serious! > For what it's worth, the Web Services Architecture final WG note included an OWL formalization of what we were trying to say about web services concepts / relationships.
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








