and....how would that be possible for RDF/XML .... (ie would OWL/XML be more suitable for XSLT mappings than RDF/XML)
(esp. relevant since we do not really have an owl level XSLT variant, or do we? Which would be very handy mapping data from one ontology to the other...) Michel -----Original Message----- From: Schmitz, Jeffrey A [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: woensdag 18 november 2009 17:20 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > At least they can start doing something with OWL data in their own > toolset/spec knowledge.... BINGO. I know nothing about OWL/XML at this point, but just had one question. Would an OWL model exported in OWL/XML be consistant enough in its representation syntax to allow one to write an XSLT against it? This would be a BIG help in making OWL models more inter-operable with existing tools. Jeff Work: 314-232-1997 Cell: 636-448-5990 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [tbc-users] Re: OWL 2 XML Serializtion > > 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=. > > > -- 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=.
