[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] fitness of XML for ontology(WAS: [ontology-summit] T

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:45:37 -0500
Message-id: <52F0FD11.2080507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Paul, Rich, and Kingsley,    (01)

I want to emphasize that the entire family of *ML languages
(GML, SGML, HTML, XML...) have definitely proved their value
for word processing, formatting, and annotating texts.    (02)

But a notation that is good for one purpose might not be good
for other purposes.    (03)

> can you point out some specific deficiencies in particular
> specifications produced by these poor benighted folk?    (04)

Excellent question.    (05)

But I certainly would not call them poor or benighted.  Most of the
deficiencies were caused by putting ideology ahead of pragmatism.    (06)

> XML is here to stay, IMHO, because it fills the void left by lack
> of a truly semantic vehicle for transmission of messages.    (07)

The *ML family of languages has won the competition for formatting
and annotating texts.  But note that XHTML lost out to HTML 5.    (08)

The second line indicates the problem:  we need a good method
for transmitting semantics.  Note how rapidly hash tags became
a de facto standard for communications among humans.  That's
a clue that hash tags are *superior* to IRIs for communicating
meaning in certain kinds of applications.    (09)

Also note how rapidly Schema.org was adopted.  That's because
the terms *and* the definitions are readable without a tutorial
or short course:  English phrases and texts without IRIs.    (010)

We certainly need unique identifiers for terms that really do
represent unique things.  Two centuries ago, Berzelius invented
the notation NaCl for salt, and it has been enormously successful
for inorganic chemistry.  But things get bad in organic chemistry.    (011)

JSON-LD is a "lightweight" attempt to mix IRIs with readable labels.
Simple examples aren't bad (http://json-ld.org ). It's a step in the
right direction.  But when you push it into more complex examples,
it gets complex.  C'est la vie.    (012)

> IMHO, English (or other natural language) is the best vehicle for
> semantic transmission, but we have yet to perfect the mechanics of it.    (013)

> Yes!    (014)

I agree.  And we need a pragmatic approach that promotes experiments
with various implementations *before* edicting standards.    (015)

John    (016)

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    (017)

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