From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 04/05/02
>Joe, > 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 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 conclusion. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST