W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > March 2007

RE: [Re: Re: [MMSEM] RDF and syntactic interoperability]]

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:03:59 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D298520108D3ED@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: GaŽtan Martens <Gaetan.Martens@ugent.be>
Cc: <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>


GaŽtan, 

Actually OWL builds upon RDF(S) and XMLS datatyping, though there are
some cases that cause troubles. However, IMHO the main difference is that
in OWL-DL - which is of practical interest - datatypes and concepts/instances
are disjoint.

Cheers,
	Michael
 
BTW: I think it would be better to cleanly differentiate between RDF (the
data model, say S - P - O) and any schema language as RDF Schema, OWL-DL, etc.
that allows to define concepts, their relations, and their properties.

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-mmsem-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xg-mmsem-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of GaŽtan Martens
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:08 PM
> To: public-xg-mmsem@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Re: Re: [MMSEM] RDF and syntactic interoperability]]
> 
> 
> Well,
> 
> RDF and OWL differ in that RDF limits data types to those 
> types that can be referenced by a URI and OWL also accepts 
> the use of data types to create classes of data types that 
> are then used to constrain the range of the properties...
> 
> Best regards,
> GaŽtan
> --
> GaŽtan Martens
> 
> Ghent University - IBBT
> Faculty of Engineering
> Department of Electronics and Information Systems Multimedia Lab
> 
> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
> B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
> Belgium
> 
> t: +32 9 33 14959
> f: +32 9 33 14896
> t secr: +32 9 33 14911
> e: gaetan.martens@ugent.be
> 
> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be
> 
> 
> 
> Danny Ayers wrote:
> > On 30/03/07, GaŽtan Martens <Gaetan.Martens@ugent.be> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Susanne,
> >>
> >> You're right about the fact that it's impossible to describe such 
> >> regions in RDF.
> >> That's why we recommend using OWL. In OWL, one can refer to a data 
> >> type and tie it into an ontology.
> >
> > Please forgive a question from a lurker - aren't the definitions of 
> > XML Schema datatypes common to both RDF(S) and OWL? How, in 
> relation 
> > to the problem of describing regions does:
> >
> > <owl:DataTypeProperty rdf:about="...">
> >       <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SomeClass">
> >       <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="someXMLns:anXMLType">
> > </owl:DataTypeProperty>
> >
> > differ from
> >
> > <rdf:Property rdf:about="...">
> >       <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SomeClass">
> >       <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="someXMLns:anXMLType">
> > </rdf:Property>
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I can't see anything in:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Danny.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 20:04:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:21 GMT