RE: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
Dear Jim,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fulton, Jim [mailto:James.Fulton@PSS.Boeing.com]
> Sent: 28 July 2000 17:47
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GPEA-UK; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org;
> Uschold, Michael F
> Subject: RE: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
>
>
> > mfu@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com wrote:
> >
> ....
>
> > ASIDE: The language for expressing DTDs is extremely weak
> in terms of what it
> > can express. XML Schema is (are?) the next generation, and
> they are much
> > improved. But even this seems beside the point unles
> someone is seriously
> > suggesting that we adopt this standard as the language for
> expressing the SUO,
> > which I trust NOone is. I repeat my belief that XML should
> be thought of as a
> > TRANSFER SYNTAX, in this context.
> >
> > Mike
> > .
> Hmm! Do we want our ontologies used? Or should we allow the
> half-baked commercial DTDs dominate the market? XML is not
> merely an exchange syntax. It is the bearer of the ontology
> codified in the DTD or Schema.
>
> I don't care what tool or language an ontology is built in,
> whether it be SUO or something more nicheful. But the product
> ought to codified as an XML Schema (which I suggest should
> invoke an XKIF Schema) to facilitate exchange.
>
> So Yes! I am "seriously suggesting that we adopt this
> standard as the language for expressing the SUO"!
>
Precisely. XML is a matter of what's out there an being used, not what we
might think is academically sound.
We will do more good with a half decent ontology in XML than a perfect one
in any other form, and I'm sure we can do better than that.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Asset Information Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================