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

Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms

• To: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>
• Subject: Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:03:22 -0400
• Cc: "[XML-Dev] Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <20040422030114.A35700@a...>
• References: <75BFDD54-8656-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040406115337.A44878@a...> <C83EA63B-8B6A-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040414121851.A19854@a...> <4708961A-9073-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <006501c42545$13701460$460e9e3e@baron> <20040418184918.A33736@a...> <15A6AABE-9316-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040421020004.A2881@a...> <D3F4E756-933F-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040422030114.A35700@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

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

• References:
  • Re: RDDL and user interface
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL and user interface
    • From: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>
  • Re: RDDL and user interface
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL and user interface
    • From: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>
  • Re: RDDL and user interface
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms (was: RDDL and user interface)
    • From: "Andreas Sewe" <sewe@r...>
  • Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
    • From: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>
  • Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
    • From: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>
  • Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
    • From: Eric Hanson <eric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Readable syntaxes (was: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online)
• Next by Date: Re: When to design an attribute in a namespace?
• Previous by thread: Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
• Next by thread: [The 4 Waves of Web Services Standards] Re: WS-Emperor naked?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread