• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:25:27 -0500

How does RDF stack up next to UML for modeling semantics?

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

1) RDF was designed for modelling the rich types of semantic relationships

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF or UML (Was RE: XML and Healthcare,RDF spec bug was: Re: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply toattributes?)
    • From: KenNorth <KenNorth@e...>
  • RE: RDF or UML (Was RE: XML and Healthcare,RDF spec bug was: Re:Default Namespaces - why don't they apply toattributes?)
    • From: johns@s... (John F. Schlesinger)
  • Re: RDF or UML (Was RE: XML and Healthcare,RDF spec bug was: Re: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply toattributes?)
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: XML and Healthcare, RDF spec bug was: Re: Default Namespaces - whydon't they apply to attributes?
• Next by Date: Re: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?
• Previous by thread: pull variant of lighttweight XML API.
• Next by thread: Re: RDF or UML (Was RE: XML and Healthcare,RDF spec bug was: Re: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply toattributes?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread