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

Re: About OWL syntax

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: About OWL syntax
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:21:30 -0400
• In-reply-to: <000801c38d0a$02704f50$c801a8c0@DIDIERHOME>
• References: <000801c38d0a$02704f50$c801a8c0@DIDIERHOME>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

Didier PH Martin wrote:

> Why not having the properties declared inside a class element? Something
> like:
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="ConsumableThing">
>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="madeFromFruit">
>      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Fruit" /> 
>   </owl:ObjectProperty>
>   .... other property definition ....
> </owl:class>
> 

Remember that any OWL statement is also a valid RDF statement. 
Therefore you can serialize it any way you like that conforms with the 
RDF serialization Rec.  You are not limited to the form of those examples.

By the same token, harkening back to your earlier question about using 
xslt to transform OWL to HTML, it is infernally hard in the general case 
because of all the allowable variations in RDF serialization.

>...  So why use a so bandwidth inefficient language as
> XML? After all, a main advantage to XML is that it could be read by human
> beings and therefore readability is an important factor doesn't it? Yes I
> know, for some, human beings are peripherals to systems :-) and that
> includes developers as well :-)
> 

Well, you can always use N3, if you want a compact and more readable syntax.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: About OWL syntax
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • About OWL syntax
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is google a conceptual graph engine?
• Next by Date: Re: About OWL syntax
• Previous by thread: About OWL syntax
• Next by thread: RE: About OWL syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread