RE: OWL & RDF

to have an RDF encoding and, for those who prefer XML, an XML encoding  is
a very good idea i think. Since there are pro's and con's for both of them,
people should be able to chose. On the syntax layer things are very clear:
RDF [without reification and collections] is just the more flexible, graph
based, version of XML tree models.

however more problematic was the question if DAML/OWL should be layered on
RDF schema, and if so, why. Long discussion, i know. However it seems that
the idea of "enabling rdf agents to query partial information from DAML
knowledge bases" has finally been abandoned, which is good   (e.g. because
an RDFS-agent will interprete "InverseProperty" partially as "property" and
may come to totally wrong conclusions, etc)

joe



                                                                                                                                                 
                      "Peter Crowther"                                                                                                           
                      <Peter.Crowther@networkinf         An:      "Jingdong Liu" <jingdong.liu@sympatico.ca>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>          
                      erence.com>                        Kopie:                                                                                  
                      Gesendet von:                      Thema:   RE: OWL & RDF                                                                  
                      www-rdf-interest-request@w                                                                                                 
                      3.org                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                 
                      24.02.2003 23:39                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                 




Note: The following are personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect
the consensus of opinion in the Web Ontology Working Group.

> From: Jingdong Liu [mailto:jingdong.liu@sympatico.ca]
> Does someone know why OWL keep the syntax of RDF?

Because it was politically unacceptable to W3C for OWL not to keep the
syntax of RDF.  This is one of the discussions that has kept cropping up
on the Web Ontology Working Group mailing list.

> And saying the following
> two expressions are the same and both allowed
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Continent"/> <rdf:Description
> rdf:about="#Continent">
>   <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Class"/>
> </rdf:Description>Can we get rid of RDF?J LIU

RDF has the advantage that it's possible to load sets of triples from
many sources and there's an obvious merge simply by merging the
resultant graphs.  That's somewhat harder with a straight XML encoding,
though by no means impossible - there is an XML encoding of OWL, for
example.

                         - Peter

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 03:38:03 UTC