Thank you very much for your answers, but i don't understand well..... you say: >1 - OWL is an extension of RDF(S) -- that is, all RDF and RDFS >documents are legal OWL Full documents OK!! If OWL is an extension.... >and all OWL documents are >legal RDFS documents HOW is it possible if OWL allow more expressivity than RDFS?? So OWL and RDFS are equivalent .... and after you say: >Not all RDFS documents are necesssarily in OWL Lite or OWL >Full. So not ALL RDFS documents are OWL documents i understand.... Have you make a mistake in writing or is all true what have you said? ************************************************************************************ Here what i have understand: - OWL is an extension of RDFS and allow more expressivity than RDFS, in fact you can, for example say that a property is required (owl:minCardinality of 1) or optional (owl:minCardinality of 0) and other such things than IN RDFS YOU CAN'T! -SO RDFS document are valid OWL documents, but NOT ALL OWL documents ARE VALID RDFS DOCUMENTS. ( e.g. owl document in which i use owl:minCardinality, that in rdfs doesn't exist ) ******************************************************************************************** Thanks if you can clarify me again the situation. Davide. ----------------------------------------------------------- Davide Noaro noarodavide@libero.it ------------------------------------------------------------Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 05:01:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC