W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: OWL Documents and new WG

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:48:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200701181648.LAA00435@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Hans Teijgeler wrote:
>Although I am not an "OWL 1.1 Member Submission author" but an OWL 1.0
>implementer (so your future client) I want to respond to your statement:
>"....OWL Reference used RDF/XML examples and had enough of an RDF
>perspective that it could require major revision....".
>If that implies that you want to get rid of RDF/XML then please be aware
>that we work every day with that syntax. Changing that to something else
>will steepen (or actually prolong) our learning curve. But if it will bring
>us *real* progress, then we'll have to invest in learning new tricks.

Clearly I suggested things with my email that I didn't intend.  Apologies
to you and others who may have been alarmed by my overstated case in
yesterday's email.  Let me clarify:

One of the few things that I am certain of about an OWL 1.1 Recommendation,
should it come to be, is that it will have RDF/XML as an exchange
syntax, just as OWL 1.0 does.  Furthermore, people like me (and you 
apparently), who use RDF/XML as a presentation syntax will still be able to 
do that.  However, RDF/XML has always had shortcomings as a tool for *people* 
to read and write OWL.  Some of these shortcomings are: 
* it is verbose and
* people often infer things from the syntax that doesn't actually exist in 
  the RDF triples that the syntax serializes.
The are a number of syntaxes in the Member Submission and the charter
mentions additional "user friendly" concrete syntaxes.  Any of these 
might be more appropriate to use in a Reference-like document for OWL 1.1.
In my previous email I was trying to solicit feedback from the Member
Submission authors on this question as well as how Reference might fit
with the proposed language design and envisioned document set.

Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 16:51:42 UTC

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