W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: [xml-dev] Topic Maps vs. RDF+DAML+OIL? RDF is inferior? What's RDF's value in the effort to Semantic Web?

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:17:34 -0500
Message-ID: <00fa01c29097$30f9bd90$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "Collin" <collin@seu.edu.cn>, "xml-dev" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Oscar Corcho" <ocorcho@fi.upm.es>, "David Greiff" <david.greiff@imk.fraunhofer.de>, <larsga@ontopia.net>

Danny Ayers wrote:
> from the Summary of Garshol's doc:

> [[[DAML and OIL use the same data model as RDF, which they do not enrich,
> and to which they contribute very little in the way of semantics, and so
> further consideration needs to be given to them.]]]
> This seems to suggest something of a misunderstanding of the layering of
> RDF. DAML and OIL don't enrich RDF per se, but they do provide
> semantics on top of RDF.

The relationship between RDF and DAML+OIL has been unfairly characteristed.

In any case we ought to be looking at the relationship between RDF and OWL
at this stage in the game. The relationship between the two formal semantics
is a technical tour de force (IMHO) whose clarification has been a year or
more in development. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ for rather
precise details. I'm sure you'll agree that OWL has quite its own
contribution to the collective semantics.

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 08:37:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC