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

Re: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:28:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3F016256.3E250DEF@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: tpassin@comcast.net, "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>

> <River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
>     <length>
>         <LengthMeasure>
>             <transform rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>
>             <number>6300</number>
>         </LengthMeasure>
>     </length>
> </River>

I have three questions:

1. I believe that what we are proposing is that the above represents
"Best Practice" in expressing a length value.  Do you agree?

2. What are the advantages of expressing it as above versus, say, this

<River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
    <length rdf:parseType="Resource">
        <units rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>

3. Getting back to the original problem ... Suppose that Document #1
contains this description:

            <transform rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>

And Document #2 contains this description:

            <transform rdf:resource='#LengthInMiles'/>

An application that receives these two documents should be able to
recognize that the two resources have the same length value, just
expressed using different transforms.  What role should an OWL ontology
play in assisting the application in understanding the relationship
between these two length values?

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 06:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:46 UTC