W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

Re: XML vs. RDF

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:36:47 +0100
To: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ulkr1wxts.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "WB" == William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu> writes:

  WB> 	5) OWL isn't perfect for representing formal ontological
  WB> frameworks - besides we're just representing terminologies, not
  WB> building an ontology

OWL is sufficient for representing terminologies as far as I can tell.  
To suggest that it isn't perfect for representing formal ontologies is
true, but slightly misleading. We don't have a perfect methodology for
representing formal ontologies. That OWL is not perfect is therefore a
relatively trivial statement.

  WB> 		a) Even when assembling a terminology, you will be
  WB> hard pressed not to represent some implicit semantic relations
  WB> in your graph.  

Not sure how this relates to OWL. 

  WB> 		b) Work is ongoing to expand the semantic expressivity
  WB> of OWL (see Chris M.'s comment re: including a formalism to
  WB> accommodate time).
It's worth mentioning that there are some difficult constraints with
respect to time. Don't quote me on this, as I am well out of my area
of knowledge. However, within the constraints of a decidable logic,
we do not yet know how to represent time based statements, while still
maintaining expressivity in other ways.

The point is that the limitations in OWL expressivity are often
deliberate, not an over-sight. 

  WB> 	6) We can leave it to others to create XSLT converters to move
  WB> the XML-only resources into the RDF++ space
  WB> 		Philip & Chris M. have both given clear answers to
  WB> this ill-advised use of XSLT. 

I think you may have misinterpreted this. My point is that XSLT is not
good for operating on RDF because there are many syntactic ways of
representing the same thing. In general, I wouldn't use XSLT at all as
I hate it, but that's a different issue. 

Received on Monday, 10 July 2006 10:37:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:17 UTC