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

RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathre

• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Subject: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:20:06 -0700
• Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@a...>,"Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcRSORn1FfV1yabgRgOJZLlEaG9/aQAAmlvw
• Thread-topic: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@o...] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:50 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Mark Baker; Elliotte Rusty Harold; XML Developers List
> Subject: Re:  Meta-somethingorother (was the 
> semantic web mega-permathread thing)
> 
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> 
> >For this to work (a) every description of a person must use 
> the same data model & (b) there needs to exist a mapping from 
> your applications data model to that of the unknown schema 
> available somewhere. This seems fairly optimistic to me and 
> highly unlikely in the geenral case in practice. 
> >  
> >
> a) This is *explicity* untrue -- read the OWL requirements doc. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/

A requirements document doesn't mean anything. Show me how the spec
achieves this. Show me how if I have a data model where a person is
identified by [SocialSecurityNumber, FullName] and you have a data model
where a person is a pair of [FirstName, LastName, DateOfBirth] we can
interoperate. 

As for wisdom of using requirements documents as argumentation points,
I'd love to see someone use http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-schema-req as
a way to argue about how various things are possible in W3C XML Schema
simply because they are in the requirements doc. 

> >
> If you read the WebOnt use cases and requirements document, 
> that is explicitly not the case -- so perhaps what you say is 
> true for "Semantic Web proponents" who haven't been involved 
> with the actual development of semantic web standards.

See above for the pointlessness of trying to argue with "We have use
cases and requirements that say this should be possible". 


--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.       

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Next by Date: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Previous by thread: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Next by thread: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread