W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: OWL "Sydney Syntax", structured english

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:08:38 -0500
Message-Id: <D14708C5-092F-496D-B8CB-588BFB1CA3E9@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Kaarel Kaljurand <kaljurand@gmail.com>, Anne Cregan <annec@cse.unsw.edu.au>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> I agree that rendering to a constrained dialect of English is an
> interesting user-interface technique;

For my money, using quasi-natural language as UI is orthogonal to a  
more human-friendly syntax for writing OWL (and for some display  
contexts). What I'd like to see a new OWL WG standardize is something  
that plays a role analogous to the role N3 (well, Turtle, really)  
plays for RDF. Something like Manchester OWL Syntax is more like an  
"N3 for OWL" than one of these quasi-natural language things.

The market needs both, but I'd prefer the WG standardize the concise,  
scribblable sufarce syntax than the quasi-natural language  
presentation syntax, if it couldn't do both. I think the quasi- 
natural thing is *much* harder and should be outside the scope of OWL  

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 21:07:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC