From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
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
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST