W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [Moderator Action] RDFOWL

From: Vivien Lacourba <vivien@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:51:44 -0400
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Cc: "Nacho ..." <ilm991070@hotmail.com>
Message-Id: <1083595904.655.1.camel@han-solo.doky.org>

[forwarding to the Web-Ontology Comments mailing list]

On Wed, 1969-12-31 at 18:59, Nacho ... wrote:
> Hello, I'm a computer science student from Madrid, Spain. Sorry my bad 
> english, please.
> Sorry basic question, but I have read RDF and OWL specifications and I would 
> like assure this:
> 
> (1)
> OWL is an language which allows user to make "meaning" to the terms created 
> by a RDF scheme. It is an extension to the RDF scheme.
> RDF without OWL allowed to describe resources, properties and them 
> relationship but with OWL it allow RIGHT MEANING besides.
> For example, RDF can define the term "autor", which is a property to "Book", 
> but OWL can define "autor" is "person responsible in creation of a document" 
> for example.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> 
> (2)
> If I wish to use MARC format in order to catalogue my virtual library, I use 
> RDF (without OWL) and use a namespace like for example 
> http://marc.org/descriptions/library#. Then I can to use properties defined 
> in http://marc.org/descriptions/library# like for example autor, title, etc.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> 
> (3)
> Dublin Core scheme is a RDF scheme or an ontology defined by using OWL?
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Amor: busca tu  naranja http://latam.msn.com/amor/
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 11:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT