[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mark Baker wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:26:14PM +0100, Paul Sumner Downey wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe the W3C should eat its own dog food and write up
>>their specs in OWL. Believe it or not i'm being serious!
>>
>>
>
>So are they!
>
>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
>http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema
>http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
>
>I don't know if those documents capture everything they could or not,
>but at least some relationships between the specs are declared.
>
For various reasons it is not possible to "capture everything" in OWL
using *only* RDF/Schema. The way that OWL is actually defined as an
extension language of RDF is via the respective model theories. The "OWL
for OWL" (as it has been called) does, however, give a flavor of what
OWL is and how OWL relates to RDF.
In terms of defining other W3C specs in OWL/RDF, I had done some work
several years ago with "XSet":
http://www.openhealth.org/XSet/ e.g. for XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces 1.0:
http://www.openhealth.org/XSet/xml.xml (which is actually RDF/XML)
but at the end of the day, what is most useful is a prose description
which is why the XSet specification itself, and hence the XSet namespace
http://www.openhealth.org/XSet is a RDDL (1.0) document.
Jonathan
|
