- From: Gaëtan Martens <Gaetan.Martens@ugent.be>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:07:50 +0200
- To: public-xg-mmsem@w3.org
Well, RDF and OWL differ in that RDF limits data types to those types that can be referenced by a URI and OWL also accepts the use of data types to create classes of data types that are then used to constrain the range of the properties... Best regards, Gaëtan -- Gaëtan Martens Ghent University - IBBT Faculty of Engineering Department of Electronics and Information Systems Multimedia Lab Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201 B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent Belgium t: +32 9 33 14959 f: +32 9 33 14896 t secr: +32 9 33 14911 e: gaetan.martens@ugent.be URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be Danny Ayers wrote: > On 30/03/07, Gaëtan Martens <Gaetan.Martens@ugent.be> wrote: >> >> Dear Susanne, >> >> You're right about the fact that it's impossible to describe such >> regions in RDF. >> That's why we recommend using OWL. In OWL, one can refer to a data >> type and tie it into an ontology. > > Please forgive a question from a lurker - aren't the definitions of > XML Schema datatypes common to both RDF(S) and OWL? How, in relation > to the problem of describing regions does: > > <owl:DataTypeProperty rdf:about="..."> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SomeClass"> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="someXMLns:anXMLType"> > </owl:DataTypeProperty> > > differ from > > <rdf:Property rdf:about="..."> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SomeClass"> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="someXMLns:anXMLType"> > </rdf:Property> > > ? > > I can't see anything in: > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/ > > Cheers, > Danny.
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 19:07:59 UTC