W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > May 2009

[LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Re: alternative syntaxes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090513.141655.125505319.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Dear Jeremy,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0014.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Concerning the Manchester Syntax:

The fact that the Working Group is leaving the Manchester Syntax
document as a Note and is not planning on turning it into a
recommendation does not mean that the Manchester Syntax document is
informative as far as the Manchester Syntax is concerned. To the
contrary, the Manchester Syntax document is just as normative for the
Manchester Syntax as the W3C Team Submissions on Turtle
(http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/) and N3
(http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/) are for Turtle and N3, and has
just as much reason for providing a MIME type as they do.  As the
Manchester Syntax was already in use (and even in some use as a syntax
for entire OWL ontologies), the Working Group felt that there was no
downside in having a Working Group note on a Manchester Syntax for OWL
2.

Concerning the new XML Serialization:

The Working Group is firmly convinced that the new XML Serialization
will be a net gain for OWL, as it will allow better integration of OWL
into the XML tool chain. The Working Group did discuss the pain involved
in having another syntax for OWL, but decided that this pain was
acceptable, particularly as the Working Group will be providing GRDDL
methods for turning documents in the XML Serialization into RDF as part
of the implementation activities during the Candidate Recommendation
period. This should mean that there is no reduction in the practial
interoperability between OWL and RDF, as RDF tools will be able to
easily obtain an RDF version of any document using the XML
Serialization. This situation is indeed better than before, as the XML
Serialization for OWL 1 does not have a GRDDL transform. 


Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
<mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. 

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:16:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:16:28 GMT