| RE: [higgins-dev] owl format |
|
Jim, I don’t know that there is a single canonical RDF representation for OWL, I’ll have to research this. But as to your broader issue, I suspect that we will want to build into IdAS itself (and expose in its API) some convenience methods that can answer the kinds of queries you mention without requiring consumers to have to know how to parse OWL themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve explored this a little bit, and even these generic query functions are non-trivial to develop.
Jim wrote:
I suppose there are tools one would use to present some kind of canonical view of the schema? I'm just wondering how difficult things are going to be for IdAS consumers when they just want to get a list of available classes and attributes for those classes.
Jim The two samples are semantically equivalent, though the w3 sample's approach is much clearer. I need to go back and clean up the examples.
-Paul
-----Original Message-----
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? (14:12:41) Duane: I too prefer the w3 example ... |