On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 09:45 -0500, John F Sowa wrote:
> Paul, Rich, and Kingsley,
> 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.
> But a notation that is good for one purpose might not be good
> for other purposes. (01)
When you communicate about logic, what passes between parties other than
words and symbols cleverly arranged according to certain accepted
patterns and rules? And what, specifically, about XML disqualifies it
for the purpose of encoding and transmitting these arrangements,
particularly when if you aim at the largest possible scope of people,
platforms, programs, and persistence (i.e., web-scale and
> > can you point out some specific deficiencies in particular
> > specifications produced by these poor benighted folk?
> Excellent question.
> But I certainly would not call them poor or benighted. Most of the
> deficiencies were caused by putting ideology ahead of pragmatism. (03)
Most of what deficiencies? (04)
And you did call them benighted: you said they were "programmers and
computer scientists who didn't understand each other's requirements or
intentions". (I'm guilty of adding "poor" for effect.) (05)
> 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. (06)
That's life without XML, anyway. (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (09)