Re: OWL version

Here is a link to an overview of xml namespaces:

http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_namespaces.asp


Bill Jarrold wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Ian Wilson wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> At this point in time our investigations and examples are just to 
>> show what a "typical" use case might look like (i.e. our requirements 
>> use cases). The details are not too important (I don't believe), we 
>> just need to see what an example would "look" like, to get the flavor 
>> of the differences between an XML, RDF and OWL representation. My own 
>> example just has dummy data in. So don't worry at this point about 
>> the mechanics of any particular model.
>>
>> wrt your specific questions:
>>
>> a. Differing models - We are trying to accommodate as many models as 
>> possible while being model agnostic. However there are 3 main model 
>> types that are widely used and represented here, Catagory/Label 
>> models, Dimensional models (like my own) and Appraisal type models. 
>> Ideally our representation would be flexible enough to allow it to 
>> any variation of those types of model.
>
> Okay.
>
> Btw, It seems that under any of those three schemes we might want to 
> start off representing them as occurants ("things that  happen")as 
> opposed to continuants ("things that are").
>
>>
>> Our use cases were a way to find who the languages users would be and 
>> what *their* needs might be so we can ensure we are building 
>> something people may actually use and need.
>>
>
> Yes.  Ontologists like me can sometimes go overboard with the desire 
> for generality and expressivity.
>
> Btw, I feel unclear if there is an important distinction between 
> markup versus ontology RE the goals of the EMOXG.
>
>> b. "Do the other annotation options (e.g. XML or RDF) allow for 
>> namespaces?" : Yes for RDF, it is a central part of the rdf idea. XML 
>> also has name spaces (xmlns).
>
> Ah, thanks.  So, if XML or RDF did not allow for namespaces then that 
> might make our choice of markup language clearer.  So, if it turns out 
> that we wanted to use namespaces to implement encapsulation of a given 
> approach (e.g. Sherer vs Douglas-Cowie) we still have the freedom to 
> chose between OWL, RDF, or XML.
>
>>
>> c."Can we import between xml files? Can we import between rdf files?" 
>> : Yes and Yes. This will be an important part of our effort as we 
>> wish to inter-operate with out languages (for example SMIL I believe, 
>> see June 2007 posts for more details).
>
> Okay thanks.
>
> Bill
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ian
>
>

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 01:27:53 UTC