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

[BioRDF] UML/RDF [Was: Meeting Notes Feb 27, 2006]

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevron.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:33:56 -0600
Message-ID: <0C237C50B244FD44BE47B8DCE23A3052011C6377@HOU150NTXC2MC.hou150.chevrontexaco.net>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu, "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

This lengthy and dense, but generally very well written, document goes
into extreme detail as to the similarities and differences between UML
and "RDF" (which I take to be a blanket term encompassing other Semantic
Web specs).  I'm not by any means an expert, but it looked to me like
there are very significant overlaps in both detail and general
philosophy of approach and implementation.  I got the impression, but
this is by no means spelled out, that this document is an artifact of
the process of the UML folk getting "on board" the SW train.  It
certainly represents a very impressive amount of effort in preparation. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Xiaoshu Wang
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:24 PM
To: 'public-semweb-lifesci'
Subject: RE: [BioRDF] Meeting Notes Feb 27, 2006

- Michael,

> http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/05-09-08.pdf
> Because it is still being evaluated, this might only be available from

> the OMG website to OMG members.

Thanks.  I was able to get the document.  Though haven't read through
yet, it is too long ( closed to 300 pages ) but I spotted one heading
from the

8.2 Why Not Simply Use or Extend the UML 2.0 Metamodel?

To me, it implies that 

RDF != UML 4.0? 

Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 15:35:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:13 UTC