• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
• From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:02:46 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072068F5@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072068F5@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

 > Do the best you can but no one
 > can make time or meaning stand still.  YMMV.

Sure they can, in the form of contracts. Essentially that is what OWL is 
for right-- a contract about the nature/meaning of a particular piece of 
information? Sure, those considerations will change over time but that 
is what versioning is for?

Semantic drift is to be expected, and I'll grant that it is a problem 
but that doesn't mean it makes the whole process useless. I know that 
the fidelity of an MP3 recorded from a CD and an old cassette are two 
wildly different things. I know that converting the MP3 to another 
format and back will likely involve some loss-- but it doesn't mean that 
the information is useless, I just have to approach soberly.

Code lists are great, shared code lists are more great-- but for each 
level you go out you have to keep in mind that there will be some 
lossiness. Fine. Still, sign me up-- if I have a program that can auto 
map 1800 out of 2000 fields reliably, I'll use it.

Cheers,
Jeff Rafter

• References:
  • RE: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XAML is the new XML for .NET
• Next by Date: RE: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
• Next by thread: RE: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread