Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:26 AM, andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth)
<andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry for the late answer, I had some problem with an "intrusive" spam filter.
>
> As for the validation issue: do you have some pointer about that ?

http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/category/semweb/owl/pellet/integrity-constraints/

> As for OWL vs RDF: ok, re-reading what I write actually sounds excessive.
> What I meant is that there are conditions in which RDF  could be an "accepted" solution, but for some general confusion between the roles of RDF and OWL people run away from it.
> This of course, is relative to a biased sampling of the world.

Yes, it can be confusing.

Cheers,
Kendall

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 14:22:15 UTC