|Date:||Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:46:21 EST|
I'll jump in here as I don't agree with where this logic is heading...
(though I agree with some of it)
In a message dated 11/19/2002 2:34:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time, lobrst@xxxxxxxxx writes:
1) You need an expressive language for ontologies, the more expressive in general
I don't believe the statement, "the more expressive the better" is the right
criteria for the language. Why? Because we don't yet know useful _expression_
from useless _expression_. Languages and systems are created all the time
with features that are rarely or never used due to poor design, poor
implementation, or they solve the wrong problem.
So, I would say: "Expressive enough to achieve known benefits."
2) It's useful to have multiple targeted syntaxes, depending on your needs. In
While you can support other syntaxes, you MUST support the #1 syntax
which is XML. So, I would say, XML first and others as you have time or
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?, Leo Obrst|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?, Adam Pease|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: AW: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?, Leo Obrst|
|Next by Thread:||RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?, Uschold, Michael F|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|