W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001

Re: RDF Core WG work on literals

From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:42:45 +0200
Message-ID: <016201c14ab1$3de46690$a6498280@tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Yes, the relation between layers were discussed a lot in this list, and
Sergey Melnik, Stefan Decker: A Layered Approach to Information Modeling and
Interoperability on the Web. In Proceedings of the Workshop "ECDL 2000
Workshop on the Semantic Web", 2000
http://dbpubs.stanford.edu/pub/2000-30
And relation between DAML + OIL and RDF is not clear
The DAML team says "The DAML language is being developed as an extension to
XML and the Resource Description Framework (RDF)."
(http://www.daml.org/about.html)
What is more in DAML XML or RDF? :)
 Best regards
MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko
Researcher
Vienna University of Technology
Extension Centre
http://derpi.tuwien.ac.at/~andrei/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>;
<walter@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RDF Core WG work on literals


> Oooh, I like this one!  Now we have justification to make DAML+OIL
> completely different from RDF!  :-)  After, all they are on different
> layers!
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: "Andrei S. Lopatenko" <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
> Subject: Re: RDF Core WG work on literals
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:34:09 +0200
>
> > There are a lof of diagrames of this sort,
> > but the fact that RDF is on different layer then XML in SW does not
means
> > that RDF is dependent or "is a" XML.
> > Logic is on different layer then RDF or XML, but you can not say that
Logic
> > " is a" or dependent on RDF or XML.
> > Developed logic theories and models for applications should be dependend
on
> > RDF notation or use RDF semantics
> > I think in future in diagramms, presentation it should be emphasized
that
> > XML and N3 and .. can be low level for RDF encoding, but no more then
low
> > level for RDF encoding
> >
> > Best regards
> > MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko
> > Researcher
> > Vienna University of Technology
> > Extension Centre
> > http://derpi.tuwien.ac.at/~andrei/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
> > To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:29 PM
> > Subject: RE: RDF Core WG work on literals
> >
> >
> > > > From: Narahari, Sateesh [mailto:Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com]
> > > > But RDF is not XML and XML is not RDF.
> > > >
> > > > Why enforce anything related to XML, into RDF model?
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > It's an interesting point, especially given that diagrams such as [1]
tend
> > > to depict RDF as a layer above XML.  Are these simply out of date now?
> > Has
> > > RDF taken on an independent existence, and become just another
stand-alone
> > > standard?
> > >
> > > - Peter
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html, and
many
> > > other places
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 15:36:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT