inline: (01)
On 2014-02-03 12:15 PM, "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (02)
>On 2/3/2014 12:55 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>XMl has nothing to do with semantics.
>>
>>XML has the ability to make data portable and can be used to transfer
>>ontological or semantic models, or fragments thereof, between
>>applications.
>
>I agree with both of those points.
>
>JSON notation (or the very similar LISP notation) could have been
>adopted by the W3C for exactly the same purposes, but without the bloat
>or excessive coding. LISP, for example, has a built-in parser that
>requires only two operators: CAR and CDR. (AKA head and tail.) (03)
The W3C has recently adopted a methodology whereby they will define a
technology (like RDF), then define bindings using various syntaxes like
JSN or XML. This is the proper way to architect interchange formats IMO
as they are developed from a good model. (04)
Duane Nickull (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|