- From: <MDaconta@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:32:30 EDT
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
In a message dated 6/26/02 12:50:39 AM US Mountain Standard Time, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com writes: > > I'd say the only time RDF becomes truly essential is when you need to > have > > clearly defined semantics for a reference back to the logical relations > > you're only just defining. There arbitrary XML simply becomes too > > unwieldy, while RDF still behaves just as it did in the beginning. I think this mixes up two different concepts -- RDF for instances and RDF for class (ontology) definition. I do not believe that there is any merit to assuming that RDF as the basis for ontologies requires RDF instances. The classes in your ontology could just as easily be mapped to XML Schema elements. In essence, is this not what the OMG MDA is proposing? In either case, the reference back is just a URI. If there are any OMG'ers out there -- I'd like to hear their take and timetable for serializing to RDF. So, currently, I get "RDFS for ontologies" but don't get RDF instances in the absence of ontologies. Nor would I assume that ontologies require RDF instances. IMO, for the sake of real-world compatibility, Ontologies will have to be able to refer to XML Schema elements (and vice versa). - Mike ---------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Daconta Director, Web & Technology Services www.mcbrad.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 14:33:20 UTC