W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > April 2003

Re: [closed] Re: OWL Questions!

From: Davide Noaro <noarodavide@libero.it>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:01:45 +0200
Message-ID: <001301c2f9c8$08be7470$221f0125@shadow>
To: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Thank you very much for your answers,
but i don't understand well.....

you say:

>1 - OWL is an extension of RDF(S) -- that is, all RDF and RDFS 
>documents are legal OWL Full documents  

OK!! If OWL is an extension....

>and all OWL documents are 
>legal RDFS documents

HOW is it possible if OWL allow more expressivity than RDFS?? 
So OWL and RDFS are equivalent .... 

and after you say:

>Not all RDFS documents are necesssarily in OWL Lite or OWL 
>Full. 

So not ALL RDFS documents are OWL documents i understand....

Have you make a mistake in writing or is all true what have you said? 

************************************************************************************
Here what i have understand:

- OWL is an extension of RDFS and allow more expressivity than RDFS, in fact you can, for example say that a 
property is required (owl:minCardinality of 1) or optional 
(owl:minCardinality of 0) and other such things than IN RDFS YOU CAN'T!

-SO RDFS document are valid OWL documents, but NOT ALL OWL documents ARE  VALID RDFS DOCUMENTS.
( e.g. owl document in which i use owl:minCardinality, that in rdfs doesn't exist )

********************************************************************************************

Thanks if you can clarify me again the situation.
Davide.

      -----------------------------------------------------------
      Davide Noaro 
      noarodavide@libero.it
      ------------------------------------------------------------  
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 05:01:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:27 GMT