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

RE: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Re: alternative syntaxes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:01:33 -0700
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c9de5e$4cfab280$e6f01780$@com>

Not happy, but not objecting further on this one either.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Re: alternative syntaxes
> 
> 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, 27 May 2009 00:02:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 00:02:23 GMT