SUO: Re: W3C approves RDF and OWL as recommendations
Danny wrote:
> There is a key point here - it isn't that the lower-level blocks
> such as the URI naming scheme and the XML language are an optional
> extra, they are a necessary prerequisite for a WWW ontology language.
Ok for the URI naming scheme but I have not yet seen any valid argument
in favor of XML. The idea of re-using existing XML tools is often cited
but I have not yet seen an example of how classic XML tools (i.e. tools
processing files based on structural-only information) could be
pipelined to do knowledge processing work (i.e. re-using one or several
inter-linked ontologies to do logical/semantic inferences).
The idea that XML parsers can be re-used does not count: all the
semantic checking remains to be done and the XML objects often have to
be converted into other objects for knowledge processing.
The idea of re-using XSLT for converting a syntax to another does not
count either: it would only work for simple syntactic transformations
and not when a large ontology has to be accessed and exploited.
More elaborate examples are welcome (the W3C site does not give any).
Philippe