+1
I’d go further: XML is only about syntax; Owl, at best, is about
grammar and lexis but this is merely conventional: there is only any grammar
and lexicon in OWL because there is a prior agreement (among humans) that
certain strings should be consistently understood in a certain way, unlike
human language which is always “fuzzier”, ambiguous and richer. I would
challenge the idea that OWL can “represent knowledge” – that’s what humans do –
but it is certainly a formalisation of concepts in a given domain of interest,
albeit poorer that what humans manage.
Regards,
Peter
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane
Nickull
Sent: 21 October 2008 15:09
To: martin.hepp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ontolog-forum] Difference between XML and OWL
And XML has NOTHING to do with semantics in
any way shape or form.
D
On 21/10/08 11:58 AM, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear
Phani,
In short: XML is a serialization format for the exchange of structured data.
OWL is a knowledge representation formalism for modeling the conceptual
elements of a domain of interest. OWL ontologies can be exchanged using XML
syntax (by means of the RDF/XML format).
For a (hopefully easy to read) intro to the field, check e.g.
http://www.heppnetz.de/files/hepp-ontologies-state-of-the%20art.pdf
Best
Martin
Phani Chaitanya wrote:
Hi
all,
Can you tell me the concrete difference between XML and OWL. If possible
state it by quoting an example in the two formats.
Regards,
--
**********************************************************************
Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Duane's World TV Show - http://tv.adobe.com/#pg+1537
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
**********************************************************************