Re: OWL & RDF

From my own point of view, the initiatives in W3C on Onto & semantic web are
rooted in information (not knowledge) exchange due to the nature of W3C.
But, ontologies are far beyond such narrowed scope. I am glad that W3C adopt
the works from OIL, it is the right track.

In ideal world, an XML-coded OIL is all we need: syntax, semantics,
pragmatics, exchange and extension capability.

J. L.

>
> to have an RDF encoding and, for those who prefer XML, an XML encoding  is
> a very good idea i think. Since there are pro's and con's for both of
them,
> people should be able to chose. On the syntax layer things are very clear:
> RDF [without reification and collections] is just the more flexible, graph
> based, version of XML tree models.
>
> however more problematic was the question if DAML/OWL should be layered on
> RDF schema, and if so, why. Long discussion, i know. However it seems that
> the idea of "enabling rdf agents to query partial information from DAML
> knowledge bases" has finally been abandoned, which is good   (e.g. because
> an RDFS-agent will interprete "InverseProperty" partially as "property"
and
> may come to totally wrong conclusions, etc)
>
> joe
>