Dear All , I have been developing lightweight owl graphic browser/editor in form of a java applet: http://ecoinformatics.uvm.edu/dmaps/growl/ However in my first encounter with parsing/rendering rdf/owl I found that it is really difficult to find a lightweight solution. The slimmest Wonderweb's owlapi had to be trimmed to produce 600k applet. My previous experience with XML based specification for a language with similar complexity where far easier. Besides being frustrated with complexity of RDF processing I completely do not understand why RDF is necessary as an intermediate layer between XML and OWL. Why simple XML solution http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/ can't be adopted as a standard. As I understand it after [1] and other papers written by logicians RDF on its own does not have any discernable advantages in terms of expressive power , decidability, (or even completeness ??). It did not have even formal semantic when it was adopted by semantic web. The non standard semantic it has now seems does not correspond to the semantic of owl. And it looks like RDF can be used for (clean) reasoning only with some 'well behaved' languages on the top. Then, after adopting OWL as a standard, what is the added value of RDF in comparison to XML? May be I am merely missing some points and someone can explain me? Thanks. Serguei Krivov, Ph.D. ,Computer Science Dept & Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont; 590 Main St. Burlington VT 05405 phone: (802)-656-2978 [1] Ian Horrocks and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Three theses of representation in the semantic web. In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pages 39-47. ACM, 2003. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/p50-horrock s.pdf
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 11:38:09 UTC