Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----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.
|
