- From: Tanel Tammet <tammet@staff.ttu.ee>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:48:45 +0200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: Daniel O'Connor <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>This is was RDF, RDFS and OWL are all about. Things getting more
>detailed the more you look into them. XML can't really provide
>*meaning*, which RDF can.
>
>
Be careful here. "Meaning" here is nothing more than a set of rules,
connecting different names like "person", "box", "bob".
Without rules there is no meaning. RDF, OWL, full first order logic
etc are simply languages for giving the rules. They do not create any
meaning just by themselves.
RDF provides _very little_ in addition to XML. Basically, you
take striped XML and you add a canonical way (a convention) to
put identifier attributes into tags.
RDFS adds a possibility to write certain types of rules: basically
the taxonomy rules of the kind "each man is an animal", plus
a few more.
In other words,
- Simply looking at your xml text as rdf text won't give a lot
more meaning than there was before.
- You can start adding meaning by writing rdfs rules, but you cannot
write especially complex rules in rdfs. Kinds of meaning you can
express will be fairly limited.
Regards,
Tanel Tammet
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2004 09:48:07 UTC