Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...> wrote, qouting without attribution: |> What's there to explain? They can't do ontology without syntax, we |> can do syntax without ontology, and they can't stand that. | | This seems completely opposite to me. Replace "they" with "I", and it | fits this mailing list. Hardly. | Ontologists are happy to use whatever syntax works. If only the new brand of ontologists did, rather than encourage pushback on a syntax which happens to have caught the public fancy of late. | The real issue here is self-declared defenders of markup complaining | about the need for data models. Right. There is no inherent need. That's what markup is all about, as a matter of fact. | That's certainly what XML-DEV's permathread centers on, and leads to all | sorts of bizarre comments like "if you want a data model, don't go near | my beautiful XML! Use ASN.1!" Or data content notations. | I think everyone who cares has already heard a million times the story: | * markup is very useful even for people who do not care about data | models Correct. | * markup in absence of data models has glorious features like entities | and DTDs Random potshot. You could fruitfully open a discussion of what DTDs do and don't, but casual denigration from a position of ignorance isn't helping you to make a point. | * markup is misunderstood and underappreciated And then some. The Clue Quotient has had a downward trend for quite a while now. | * people who can understand and appreciate markup are saltier than you If you insist. | Years have passed, and syntax and data model are coexisting peacefully. Glad to hear it. Leave well enough alone.
|
