[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML/RDF

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML/RDF
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:37:12 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3DCEBCBF.6090503@p...>
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <3DCEBCBF.6090503@p...>

Paul Prescod wrote,
> Micah Dubinko wrote:
> > Isn't that the whole crux of the problem? If the problem is that
> > two databases (or web pages) use a different name for "zip code",
> > the solution is to add a third (Q)name, that both must agree upon?
>
> That's one option, but it is very heavy-handed and not practical in
> all cases. What do you do about pre-existing data sources that you
> don't control? What if you can't convince the owners of these data
> sources to work together?
>
> I prefer the other option. I can, either locally or globally, make a
> statement that says that these two things are really the same and it
> is _as if_ they had standardized but without the effort. Then I can
> save my energy to standardize the really hard cases like across
> disparate addressing schemes or protocols, or when the mapping is
> more complex than a simple renaming.

I prefer the other option too.

But it's not clear to me what this has to do with RDF or DAML. Once 
you've defined a mapping between the vocabularies (and if you want to 
get fancy, between the choreographies too), and what useful job is 
there left for assertions and reasoners to do?

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML/RDF
• Next by Date: RE: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Previous by thread: Re: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: Re: XML/RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread