[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] local/global (was Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?")
costello@m... (Roger L. Costello) writes: > Should the semantic definition (2.1) be: > (a) hardcoded and buried within each application, > or, should it be: > (b) declaratively stated in a separate document, > using a standard, well-defined vocabulary (i.e., OWL). > >I argued for the later, (b). This seems to me a false choice. There's a range between (a) and (b), and probably 95% of all XML documents and applications fall inside the range, not at either of its endpoints. I'd phrase the two perspectives somewhat more neutrally as "local" and "global". Local semantics tend to be far richer, and easier to use without deep thought - think about the level of communication we have with family members, or even co-workers. Global semantics are useful, but tend to either be watered-down (think AP stories) or to require negotiation (turning to dictionaries for words out of range, or just plain asking). OWL seems to be an effort to reduce the cost of global semantics, but I have serious doubts about the value of that project as expressed here earlier. There's a second range I'll describe as "minimal" or "ambitious", describing the scope of the project. Minimal projects include the small and naturally limited vocabularies people write for a particular program (config files are a classic), while ambitious vocabularies try to cover as much as possible of a given field (maybe TEI is a good example). It's possible for a project to have global reach and minimal scope, or local reach and enormous scope. Some projects start out local or minimal and creep their way up to something larger through broad acceptance and new needs, but the track record for such projects is pretty mixed - conflicts definitely become an important (and valuable) part of the picture as range and scope expand. IMHO, costs increase dramatically as a project moves from local to global and minimal to ambitious. Abolishing negotiation in favor of prior agreement reduces one kind of cost, but also limits flexibility and generally has both initial agreement costs and ongoing costs as users try to map their understandings to official semantics. The classic 80/20 (80% of capability, 20% of cost) description seems to fit this story pretty well, though maybe it becomes 64/4 if you plot it on two axes. Maybe that's too much to hope for. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
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
|