From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 04/05/02

>   One very brief answer to why use DAML as opposed to XML is that a 
>set of DAML statements by itself (and the DAML spec) can allow you 
>to conclude another DAML statement whereas a set of XML statements, 
>by itself (and the XML spec) does not allow you to conclude any 
>other DAML statements.  To employ XML to generate new data, you need 
>knowledge embedded in some procedural code somewhere, rather than 
>explicitly stated, as in DAML.
>   For example, the triples
>(motherOf subProperty parentOf)
>(Mary motherOf Bill)
>when stated in DAML, allows you to conclude
>(Mary parentOf Bill)
>based on the logical definition of "subProperty" as given in the 
>DAML spec.  The same information stated in XML does not allow you to 
>assert the third fact.  XML itself provides no semantics for its 
>tags.  One might create a program that assigns similar semantics to 
>a "subProperty" tag, but since that semantics isn't part of the XML 
>spec, applications could be written which conform to the XML spec, 
>and yet do not make that assertion.

Adam, right on. One niggle: that particular inference can be done in 
RDFS, so it doesnt argue very well for the use of DAML specifically. 
I think a better example would be one with an equivalentTo 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST