From: Bernd Eilers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 15:38:25 MDT
Hi Eliezer !
Thanx for finally providing this we´ve been waiting for more information
on Flare for "say, a month or so" ;-)
http://www.sysopmind.com/sing/PtS/technology/components/flare.html ( at
the bottom )
In the preliminary material about Flare that you have provided I see a
lot of reference to metadata and annotation.
I wondered why this is not based on RDF. RDF which is itself based on XML
would IMHO map more naturally to these ideas than just defining an XML
base programming vocabulary. Metadata, Annotations and Statements about
Statments is all that RDF is about. An RDF based approach would also map
better to AI concepts like knowledge representation, ontology, inference,
reflection, reasoning, forward chaining, backward chaining, etc.
RDF Specifications, etc.
An attempt to answer the question, "Why should I use RDF - why not just
Ontology Inference Layer OIL (based on RDF)
The DARPA Agent Markup Language Homepage
RDF query and inference
The Semantic Toolbox: Building Semantics on top of XML-RDF
The W3C Annotation project
Can you explain why RDF was not considered for Flare ?
The planar annotations described in
http://singinst.org/flare/idioms.html#planar look like a poor mans bad
reinvention of the XML namespace mechanism that does not provide the same
flexiblitiy and elegant design of XML namespaces to me. Why would one
want to use something like a p- prefix for tags to avoid namespacing
collisions and a default plane declaration in a module when ve can use
namespace prefixes and namespace declarations and e a default namespace
declarations on elements eg. at the top level element in a such a module.
See also: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 22 2013 - 04:00:24 MDT