• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML/RDF
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:39:02 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3DCF25B8.8090702@p...>
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211102037.12966.miles@m...> <3DCF25B8.8090702@p...>

Paul Prescod wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I prefer the other option too.
> >
> > But it's not clear to me what this has to do with RDF or DAML. Once
> > you've defined a mapping between the vocabularies (and if you want
> > to get fancy, between the choreographies too), and what useful job
> > is there left for assertions and reasoners to do?
>
> I would define the mapping _as_ a RDF/DAML(OWL) assertion using
> DAML's (OWL's) equivalentTo relationship.

Maybe I should have said transformation rather than mapping.

I'll try again: once you've defined an executable transformation (eg. 
using XSLT), what useful job is there left for RDF/DAML/OWL to do?

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML/RDF
• Next by Date: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Previous by thread: Re: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread