- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:36:53 -0500
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote: > >That is to say: an OWL document is an RDF document which is interpreted > >according to the OWL semantics. > > Well, OK, but look: suppose I have a doc which contains nothing but > RDF but the RDF uses terms that are defined in an OWL doc somewhere, > and I want to know what media type I should say it has. Seems to me > that with your scheme, it doesn't matter which I use. So why do we > have the distinction? Whereas if we just say, xml means it looks > like XML, rdf means it looks like RDF, and owl means it looks like > OWL, then we are giving some useful syntactic information to a parser > which might need to know it. > > Pat hmmm, since RDF/XML is XML, then RDF looks like XML hence is XML. ditto for OWL and since OWL is RDF/XML and hence looks like RDF, then OWL is RDF and since Dan says that all RDF is OWL, then RDF is OWL ... so what does what something looks like tell me? I guess the first question is: How do I tell whether something is RDF or OWL? Does this distinction make sense? and the second: How do I know when to apply simple RDF entailments vs. RDF Schema entailments vs. OWL DL entailments vs. OWL Full entailments to a particular RDF/XML document? Answer these questions and I can tell you what an OWL document is, and if an OWL document is different than an RDF document. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 22:56:54 UTC