- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevron.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:33:56 -0600
- 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 document: 8.2 Why Not Simply Use or Extend the UML 2.0 Metamodel? To me, it implies that RDF != UML 4.0? Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 15:35:22 UTC