Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Eric Hanson wrote: >Jonathan Borden (jonathan@o...) wrote: > > >>Well RDF isn't human readable and it does describe resources, and >>splinter specs such as RDFS and OWL allow you to specify vocabularies >>in ways that actual software can process. Of course it's probably more >>complicated that what you want, but so is the English language... and >>just like the English language it is being used ... actually if we use >>this analogy, RDF is more like ... say Belgian, but nonetheless it does >>have a population :-) >> >> > >Sounds good, using OWL might be the way to go. So...what's the >ontology of a resource that supports XML data? That one will >take some figuring. > > I don't have a particular ontology offhand but considering RDDL nature and purpose: 1) A rddl:purpose is equivalent to (or possibly a subset of) an owl:ObjectProperty 2) rddl:nature is an owl:Class to which the referenced resource is an instance of. In RDF (triple syntax): rddl:purpose owl:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty . rddl:nature owl:subClassOf owl:Class . rddl:resource owl:equivalentTo rdfs:Resource . rddl:href rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . and that's about it -- of course you might develop your own "ontology" to suit a particular need/project. Indeed you could develop typelib as an ontology in which case any properties could be used as rddl:purposes and any classes as rddl:natures. Jonathan
|
