[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
[Simon St. Laurent] >Given the choice of conversations, I'll stick to the strange little world of characters and >markup rather than striving to build global meaning. I'd like to see fans of global meaning, Knowledge Technologists etc. take a look at something like MS Word. 1 - If MS Word had a published schema+documentation, would the semantics of WordML be known? Answer: not even close. 2 - How much of the elaboration of the semantics of WordML is in MS Word - the application - as opposed to WordML - the schema + documentation? There comes a point - and Walter Perry has been saying it for a long time - when the meaning of a piece of XML exists solely in the imperative logic of a particular process and nowhere else. Sad, but true. Published schemas are a big help (please can we have documentation for WordML) but they ain't the whole story by any means. The never-ending quest for perfect import/export filters from word processors is an interesting microcosm of the shared meaning problem. In my opinion, there will never be perfect import/export filtering without a common rendering model and that seems very, very far away in WP/DTP land. I really don't understand why MS don't publishing the schema for WordML. As I've said in this post, its not like it will give away the *meaning* of WordML :-) Sean http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
|
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
|