RE: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
Dear Colleagues,
EBNF and XML do essentially the same thing, but EBNF is at a lower level
than XML. That is they give you a mechanism for defining the encoding of
structure in text so that it can be recognised by a reader. Neither says
anything about what the structure means.
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/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Wallace [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov]
> Sent: 28 July 2000 19:42
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
>
>
>
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> >> 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"!
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Expressing or exchanging? Wouldn't expression be in the form
> (ignoring Bill
> Burkett's suggestion for a graphical form) of ASCII
> characters formatted
> in conformance with KIF EBNF? I assume that Mike's
> description of using XML as
> a transfer syntax meant, essentially "to facilitate
> exchange." However, you could
> expand this into a broader statement of use (as other
> "standards" efforts have)
> to include editing and display which would lead to the
> following work item:
> - Define an XML DTD (or Schema) for KIF to facilitate the
> development of software
> tools to support the viewing, editing, and transfer of KIF
> based knowledge
> descriptions*.
>
> * I am not sure that "knowledge descriptions" is the correct
> term to mean:
> anything that can be written in KIF. Is there a good term for this?
>
>
> Evan K. Wallace
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> NIST
>