Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks for the clarifications, and I agree these technologies need to coexist. It would seem one could start from the XML DTD/Schema types, get the local systems running, then come in later and add RDF/OWL type descriptions. What are the benefits of dual systems of classification? len From: jborden@a... [mailto:jborden@a...] Len, I agree with what you say below. To be clear, RDF is not _itself_ an ontology language. But one can develop an ontology language e.g. DAML or OWL which is based upon RDF, i.e. is written in RDF syntax (triples) and at the same time XML (as a dialect of RDF/XML). At the same time, via XML datatypes, one can speak about (e.g. make assertions about, or classifications of) pieces of structured data in OWL. In RDF you can assign a type (i.e. place into a classification) with an "rdf:type" arc e.g. <http://example.org/foo> rdf:type owl:Class . now assuming that you have an XML Schema type you might integrate this with OWL as such: my:date-format rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . so the idea that a fragment of XML conforms to a certain XML Schema _type_ is the same as saying that such a fragment belongs to a corresponding OWL _Class_. So in summary, you might assign free-form RDF 'individuals' to classes, and you might also assign fragments of markup to classes, both using OWL (which is the successor to DAML). Both RDF and XML approaches to classifications/ontologies need to coexist on the semantic web.
|
