-----Original Message-----
From:
higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Monday, August
21, 2006 4:22 PM
To: Higgins (Trust Framework)
Project developer discussions
Subject: [higgins-dev] owl format
Another dead thread from the chat channel:
(14:05:41) Jimse: Anyone know why Paul's example OWL (jim.owl) uses
an rdf:Description element to describe the ontology as opposed to an
owl:Ontology element?
(14:05:41) Jimse: Compare http://spwiki.editme.com/files/ExampleContextOntology/jim.owl
to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/wine.rdf
(14:06:23)
domanator: was you talking to me? cuz it
sounds like you was talking to me!
(14:07:02) Jimse: talking to the great higgins pumpkin
(14:07:55) Jimse: actually, the two samples differ in similar ways
throughout
(14:10:54) Jimse: I like the example at w3.org better. I assume one
needs a fairly robust parser if the two are both valid ways of doing the same
thing.
(14:12:33)
domanator: yeah, ...
(14:12:41) Duane: I too prefer the w3 example
...
(14:20:57) Jimse: mostly, I'm just wondering how many representations
a consumer of IdAS schema will need to be aware of.
