BibSonomy :: bibtex  ::

tag user group author concept BibTeX key search:all search:flint63
A blue social bookmark and publication sharing system.
tags · relations · groups · popular
help · blog · about
login · register
flint63's BibTeX entry:  

A Comparison of (Semantic) Markup Languages

FLAIRS 2002 Conference, : 413-418, 2002.
Authors: Yolanda Gil and Varun Ratnakar
Editors: Susan M. Haller and Gene Simmons
Tags: aaai ai knowledge ontology paper processing rdf semantic v0805 web xml
Abstract: Several languages have been proposed as candidates for semantic markup. We needed to adopt a language for our current research on developing user-oriented tools operating over the Semantic Web. This paper presents the results of our analysis of three candidates that we considered: XML, RDF, and DAML+OIL along with their associated schemas and ontology specifications. The analysis focuses on the expressiveness of each language, and is presented along several dimensions and summarized in a comparison table. A surprising result of our analysis is the decision to adopt XML(Schema) for practical reasons, since it is able to accommodate a relatively expressive set of constructs and is widely known and commercially supported. We also discuss how we plan to complement XML(S) with a small set of conventions, so that we will have an easier transition to other markup languages in the future.
| BibTeX  
@inproceedings{GilRatnakar02FLAIRS,
title = {A Comparison of (Semantic) Markup Languages},
address = {Menlo Park, CA, USA},
author = {Yolanda Gil and Varun Ratnakar},
booktitle = {FLAIRS 2002 Conference},
crossref = {FLAIRS2002},
editor = {Susan M. Haller and Gene Simmons},
pages = {413-418},
publisher = {AAAI Press},
year = {2002},
abstract = {Several languages have been proposed as candidates for semantic markup. We needed to adopt a language for our current research on developing user-oriented tools operating over the Semantic Web. This paper presents the results of our analysis of three candidates that we considered: XML, RDF, and DAML+OIL along with their associated schemas and ontology specifications. The analysis focuses on the expressiveness of each language, and is presented along several dimensions and summarized in a comparison table. A surprising result of our analysis is the decision to adopt XML(Schema) for practical reasons, since it is able to accommodate a relatively expressive set of constructs and is widely known and commercially supported. We also discuss how we plan to complement XML(S) with a small set of conventions, so that we will have an easier transition to other markup languages in the future.},
timestamp = {2008.05.21}, file = {ACM Digital Library:2002/GilRatnakar02FLAIRS.pdf:PDF}, isbn = {1-57735-141-X}, subtitle = {FLAIRS, May 14--16, 2002, Pensacola Beach, Florida, USA}, owner = {flint},
keywords = {aaai ai knowledge ontology paper processing rdf semantic v0805 web xml }
}