- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:34:36 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>, <timbl@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 11:18 PM 12/8/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Since we are on this topic, what is the intended relationship between RDFS >and DAML-ONT? Is DAML-ONT intended to be an extension of RDFS or a >replacement for RDFS (i.e. what is the intended meaning of the >'equivalentTo' arc as used by DAML-ONT w.r.t RDFS ?) It seems that an >alternate way of defining DAML-ONT terms might have been proper subClassOf >their corresponding RDFS terms, and if not, then perhaps RDFS is not >sufficient for 'real world' work, no? I hope it's not to be a "replacement". I think that RDFS (suitably cleaned up) is probably sufficient for _some_ real-world work. I understand DAML-ONT to be pushing into areas deliberately not covered by RDFS. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 10:19:54 UTC