- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:47:17 -0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <larsga@ontopia.net>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
> > 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. Brian
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 13:47:29 UTC