RE: LANG: Proposal to close issue 5.17 - XML syntax

At 7:25 PM -0600 10/29/02, Smith, Michael K wrote:
>I think this is the same discussion we had before. And you
>probably gave me pointers to the email message on the RDF
>discussion thread that contains the latest version of the
>RDF/XML syntax that would be sufficient to account
>for OWL.  Should I provide a reference to that? 
>You are asserting that if I write some XML without a single
>OWL tag, but that satisfies the RDF/XML standard, then I have
>written OWL.  Perhaps, given the semantic support for OWL/RDF,
>I have.  I still find this odd. 
>Once I get past the examples, the best way I currently know
>of to determine what's legal OWL is to read the Reference,
>which gives a pretty good verbal description of the composition
>of OWL components. 
>- Mike

  Suppose I have a file that says


<jim:elephant rdf:id="Clyde">
   <jim:owner :BarnumBailey>
   <jim:color color:grey>

and it turns out that jim: is a file with an ontology statement in it 
that defines elephant to be a class with the various properties.

This is XML with no OWL in it (and also RDF with no Owl in it).
Using application/rdf+xml  seems to me we would handle it right, and 
if the namespace reference to jim: was followed, then it would be 
recognized to be OWL (or at least instances of OWL).   So the issue 
of "what is OWL" might be more complicated to answer than it seems...

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 22:53:35 UTC