W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Krivov's question: "Why RDF?"

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:34:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4052D5A7.3050302@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Ian Horrocks wrote:

> The W in OWL stands for Web. Some may argue that Web does not imply
> RDF.

Agreed - there was a potential choice that the WebOnt group could have 
made.  The Web part does require:

- working out how to include OWL in HTML
- working on the relationship between OWL and XML
- having some internationalization capabilities for OWL
- understanding the relationship between URLs for documents and URIs for 

while RDF has often introduced potentially unnecessary difficulties in all 
of the above, there is at least progress on all topics.

The political side is not just clubbiness or people but also comes down to 
money. The HP Semantic Web group, for instance, would not, I believe, have 
felt able to resource work in two independent approaches to knowledge on 
the Web - given our prior investment in RDF we would have pulled out of 
WebOnt  - not out of sour grapes but simply as good business of not 
spreading our effort too thin. Technically OWL without RDF could have been 
a better solution, but it would have cost a lot more if we had wanted to 
get the relationships with other Web technologies progressing.

So a different possible tactic would to have devised a migration path from 
RDF to a (non-RDF) OWL and persuaded enough RDF users that they should 
migrate ... sounds like a barrel of laughs.

Received on Saturday, 13 March 2004 04:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:57 UTC