Ok, but :) Many people currently using Plain XML specs/tools (for instance those who are able to handle XSDs and compliant XML data) would find it easier to do something with the OWL/XML output than with the RDF forms.
So I agree that OWL/XML would be a step in between OWL in RDF form and Plain XML... At least they can start doing something with OWL data in their own toolset/spec knowledge.... So the question is now: is OWL/XML not better/simpler/moredirect for this purpose than XML/RDF (as you suggest). Michel -----Original Message----- From: Scott Henninger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: woensdag 18 november 2009 16:57 To: TopBraid Composer Users Subject: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion <Currently the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation is developing there own xml based ontologies. Quite stupid but nevertheless a fact of the real world.> Yes ;-) and it is perplexing that the message on OWL and RDF compatibility has failed to reach them. <I would like to be able to persuade them to at least use the xsd for OWL/XML to make there ontologies compatible with the world of linked data> Already done. All of OWL can be represented in RDF and RDF/XML provides an XML serialization. So as long as the constructs are compatible with RDF, there is no problem. RDF is the basis for linked data, by the way. OWL adds some modeling constructs, and inferencing profiles on top of that, but RDF is what is necessary. OWL/XML, on the other hand is not an RDF format, and it is perplexing why it is deemed necessary. Perhaps the problem is verbosity of RDF/ XML. But the larger, much more important issue, is the unnecessary disconnection between RDF and OWL. This means that one will be left with no effective query language, as SPARQL operates on RDF. -- Scott On Nov 18, 7:39 am, Peter Bruhn Andersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > You asked:> So, I am intrigued ... do you want OWL/XML format because > you want to > > read it? Because you have other tools that work with OWL/XML but not > > with RDF/XML? or ... > > what is the underlying requirement driving this request? > > My personal reason for wanting TopQuadrant to provide us with this > feature is to let me reach out to the many who still sees no reason > whatsoever to use RDF and/ OWL. > Letting those of us who can develop ontologies using OWL while we > provide the xml community with a vesrion they understand seems to me > to be a good solution. This way we can introduce semantic technologies > step by step without having a non-productive battle between XML and > RDF communities. > > A case in point: Currently the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology > and Innovation is developing there own xml based ontologies. Quite > stupid but nevertheless a fact of the real world. I would like to be > able to persuade them to at least use the xsd for OWL/XML to make > there ontologies compatible with the world of linked data. > > And I hope I can count on TopQuadrant to provide me with the tools. > > Regards, > Peter Bruhn Andersen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=. This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=.
