• To: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:10:20 -0800
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211111241.54826.miles@m...> <012f01c2898f$3249ef30$1101a8c0@VAIOCOGI> <200211111440.54331.miles@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Miles Sabin wrote:
>...
> Not quite. I'm saying that vocabulary to vocabulary mappings can be 
> expressed in XSLT as well as in OWL, and I'm suggesting that for many 
> practical purposes XSLT is likely to be a better bet.

I don't think that anybody is claiming that OWL should replace XSLT. 
Rather that OWL is better when OWL's features are a better fit and XSLT 
is better in the opposite situation. We've talked at length about the 
strengths and weaknesses of both already.

  Paul Prescod

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@c...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by Date: Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot? (was Re: dtds, schemas,xhtml, and multimedia technologies)
• Previous by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread