Another good article on this subject is:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/semantic_technologies/pdf/vldb_2005.pdf
jb
From: William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:41:01 -0500
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
To: Susie Stephens <[EMAIL PROT
On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Robert Stevens wrote:
Bill, I wholeheartedly agree. Utility rather than dogma is a much
better criterion for evaluation.
Worked for Darwin :-)
Works for me.
At 04:55 25/01/2007, William Bug wrote:
Many thanks, Xiaoshu.
It's very helpful to get a sense of the
> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Phil> Yeah, Robert has my main beef which is the distinction
>> between the representation language and the representation
>> itself.
Alan> Yup. Though there is too often a confusion between the
Alan> ontology and the represen
Bill, I wholeheartedly agree. Utility rather than dogma is a much
better criterion for evaluation.
At 04:55 25/01/2007, William Bug wrote:
Many thanks, Xiaoshu.
It's very helpful to get a sense of the full spectrum of opinion on
this issue.
I would agree for most all the folks on this list
