- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:02:15 -0600
- To: Davide Noaro <noarodavide@libero.it>, Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 11:07, Davide Noaro wrote: > Hi, > I'm an italian student of computer science and I'm interesting in Web > Ontology Language. > I read documents about it, but i didn't understand well how OWL works > and the relation with RDFS.... here some questions > > 1) OWL is an extension of RDFS? That is, OWL has much expressive power > than RDFS ( i can express thing that with RDFS i coudn't ) or it's > equal but it can express relation and properties more easily? The overview covers this question... "OWL has more facilities for expressing meaning and semantics than XML, RDF, and RDF-S, and thus OWL goes beyond these languages in its ability to represent machine readable content on the Web." -- 1. Introduction OWL Web Ontology Language Overview W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/#s1 and the reference covers it in a it more detail... "OWL is a vocabulary extension of RDF." -- 1.4 OWL and RDF semantics OWL Web Ontology Language Reference W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Semantics The exact nature of the relationship is covered in excruciating detail in the semantics document, and there are a number of relevant test cases. But I suspect the two sections above are most responsive to your question. Do they answer your question well enough? > 2)There are some pratical example of the use and usefulness of OWL? ( > Not test cases of W3C or Wine ontology) > I think to a tool that can do something usefull with an > ontology.... Tools are emerging. We're starting to collect tools and implementation experience... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/#Tools Strictly speaking, this question isn't in scope of the specification; you're welcome to ask in www-rdf-logic@w3.org , a forum where many of the tool developers participate. > I think that without some very pratical example people cound't > understand well how ontology work and why develop them. Thanks for any > answer... and sorry for my english! ;-) On the contrary, thank you very much for translating your question to English. It is W3C's policy[1] to conduct official business in English, but we see this as a necessary evil, not an optimal situation. We do what we can[2] to facilitate participation in other languages. In particular, I believe we have a certain amount of resource available to work with OWL feedback in Italian, right Massimo? [1] 5.1 General Information about Technical Reports http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#DocumentsGeneral [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/ > Davide. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Davide Noaro > noarodavide@libero.it > ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 14:02:24 UTC