ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology-building vs Data Modelling (was Two ontolog

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:07:53 -0400
Message-id: <46797B09.3020104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

That is only partly true:    (02)

 > It is my personal view that RDF and its children were really
 > intended only to be read by specialized software tools, and
 > some of those tools might reasonably be 'ontology editors'
 > that present the ontology in a form that is easier to work with.    (03)

The original GML notation was designed in 1969 as a more readable
and typable notation that was closer to the author's intent than
the SCRIPT formatting tags.  At IBM in the 1970s, every secretary
learned to type GML tags, which included the basic HTML subset.    (04)

When HTML came out, professional web designers preferred to type
HTML tags directly (because of the WYSIAYG problem -- What You
See Is *All* You Get).  There is no reason why XML could not
have supported the professionals in the same way that GML and
HTML did.    (05)

As for RDF, I recommend Tim Bray's note about what happened:    (06)

    http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/05/21/RDFNet
    ongoing  The RDF.net Challenge    (07)

As Tim said, "It's the Syntax, Stupid!"  And he apologized
for it.  Unfortunately, the W3C didn't accept his apology.    (08)

John    (09)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (010)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>