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

Re: OWL & RDF

From: Jingdong Liu <jingdong.liu@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:26:59 -0500
Message-ID: <006601c2dcd1$93a25480$0de5fea9@DCR8PM11>
To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>, <Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

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
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 08:27:03 GMT

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