Kingsley and Tara, (01)
I agree with both of you. (02)
KI
> If they [Amazon, Google, Facebook, LinkedIn...] used RDF
> (forget about the RDF/XML notation) they would have
> a much better system. (03)
Yes. My only addition is that we need upward compatible extensions.
OWL is one example. My only complaint about OWL is the word 'the'
in front of the name. If they called OWL "A Web Ontology Language",
I'd be happy. But note the comments below. (04)
TA
> The very idea of schemas for JSON is anathema to many JSON users,
> so don't expect much support from the community for this. (05)
I agree that unrestricted JSON is a meaningless notation. It's worse
than unrestricted natural language, because it provides the *illusion*
of being precise. (06)
TA
> The XML schema description language (XSD) certainly has many
> shortcomings, but there are other options, especially Relax NG,
> NVDL and Schematron (http://dsdl.org/), all supported by tools
> like oXygen (http://oxygenxml.com) (07)
The growth of multiple specification languages is fine -- provided
that there is a systematic way to relate their semantics to one
another. (08)
There will never be "One ring to rule them all." But we can have
better methods for relating them and supporting interoperability. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|