Re: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

["Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@humanmarkup.org>]

Aren't primaries what Len abstracts under 'Toolkit'? The way I 
understand your posts, primaries are most of the work we can do without 
getting into "unreusable" territory.

About DAML + OIL, I always wanted to avoid it, although I must admit 
that I now understand this was due myself not being able to utilize it. 
Recent discussion on RDF-Interest shows one cannot have real type 
validation using RDF-Schema alone. RDF Schema rules are used for 
inference instead of validity constraints. URIs pointing to schema 
documents are also a hack...

SemWeb Specs from W3C are going through rough times. Holes and missing 
pieces are been explored. However it seems that the expressive power of 
RDF and DAML is the best solution right now. It will be hard for us to 
invest in Topic Maps at this point.

David's post was refreshing!

Manos

Rex Brooks wrote:

> I'm about to go into a telecon, but we don't have to do what Len 
> suggests now. We can do it later, once we have a set of primaries. I 
> suggested DAML-OIL as a starting pint in a separate post.
>
> Rex
>
> At 5:58 PM +0300 6/11/02, Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
>
>> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>>
>>> For David's modified taxonomy to work within the current design, the 
>>> classes need to identify the primary, then derive what he has now 
>>> from that.
>>
>>
>> Does this mean we just use different terminology?
>>
>>
>> Manos
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>