RE: Interpretation of RDF reification

> I don't understand the difference.  RDF just does not have 
> the expressive
> power to do this sort of thing.   It just like asking whether 
> propositional
> logic could express something like "All students are people."

I think that answers my question.  

I'm confused about how semantics of owl relate to the semantics of RDF.

In a similar vein, does RDF have the expressive power to define local
domain and range constraints?  Not in itself, but I think of Owl as an
RDF vocabulary that extends RDF, and can express such constraints.  So
in one sense RDF does have the expressive power to represent local
domain and range constraints, but it needs the Owl vocabulary to do so.

I'm interpretting your answer as saying that one couldn't have an RDF
voculary the expressed the sort of structures I suggested around
marriage and Marriage without extending the RDF syntax.

At this point I should cease to tax your patience and go read a book on
logic if I really want to understand the answer.


Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 13:47:29 UTC