[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML/RDF

• To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@m...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML/RDF
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:36:38 -0500
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211102037.12966.miles@m...> <3DCF25B8.8090702@p...> <200211110739.02458.miles@m...>

Miles Sabin wrote:
>
> 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?
>

OWL allows you to define not only equivalences between classes of objects,
properties of objects and object themselves but allows you to define
heirarchical classifications of objects. Indeed a subset of OWL can be used
as an interchange syntax for UML.

You might say that XML Schema already allows you to do the heirarchical
classification part, and certainly there is some overlap with the
capabilities of OWL. Nowhere does XML Schema allow you to say that any two
classes are the same (regardless of what they look like). Indeed it is not
possible to write an accurate XML Schema for RDF. Now you *can* write a
RELAXNG pattern for RDF but it doesn't understand the inheritance thing or
classification thing. On the other hand OWL doesn't concern itself with the
details of XML, what folows what etc. OWL Lite might be described as a good
interchange syntax for UML diagrams.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• 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...>
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

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