Kingsley, (01)
My general point about any technology is simple: (02)
Anything that anybody has found to be useful is indeed useful. (03)
> Is there any chance that you can accept this important change to RDF
> i.e., reflect the decoupled nature of RDF (expressed in RDF 1.1)
> in the talk I referred to above? (04)
I "accept" RDF in the same way as Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, and
many others. If anybody has produced any useful data in RDF form,
I would map it into formats I prefer. But I cannot foresee any
reason why I would choose to base a new project on RDF formats. (05)
Re XML: I have been using *ML formats for word processing since the
1970s (that is when I began to use IBM's GML). I formatted my 1984
book in camera-ready copy with GML. When HTML came out, I switched
my word processing to HTML, which I now import into OpenOffice or
LibreOffice to produce other formats, such as PDF, DOC, PPT, etc. (06)
In the 1980a, I participated in computational linguistics projects
when I argued for SGML as a good notation for tagging documents
with semantic information. (07)
But tags such as <script> and </script> have proved to be the
*preferred* way to embed languages such as JavaScript, JSON,
PHP, etc., into *ML documents. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|