W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2003

RE: OWL & RDF

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:39:57 -0000
Message-ID: <3BE4D3F0FB726240966DEF40418472B5012CD1@ni-lon-server1.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Jingdong Liu" <jingdong.liu@sympatico.ca>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Note: The following are personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect
the consensus of opinion in the Web Ontology Working Group.

> From: Jingdong Liu [mailto:jingdong.liu@sympatico.ca] 
> Does someone know why OWL keep the syntax of RDF?

Because it was politically unacceptable to W3C for OWL not to keep the
syntax of RDF.  This is one of the discussions that has kept cropping up
on the Web Ontology Working Group mailing list.

> And saying the following
> two expressions are the same and both allowed
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Continent"/> <rdf:Description 
> rdf:about="#Continent">
>   <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Class"/>
> </rdf:Description>Can we get rid of RDF?J LIU

RDF has the advantage that it's possible to load sets of triples from
many sources and there's an obvious merge simply by merging the
resultant graphs.  That's somewhat harder with a straight XML encoding,
though by no means impossible - there is an XML encoding of OWL, for
example.

		- Peter
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 17:40:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT