- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:45:24 +0100
- To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Hi Matthew, Sorry to hear that you are not having a very good experience with the OWL 1.1 XML syntax spec. I would like to second Bijan's request that you document your experiences so that they can contribute to improving the quality of the spec. Ian On 10 Jul 2007, at 16:07, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 10 Jul 2007, at 15:45, Matthew Pocock wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've reached the point where I'm writing the xml serializer/ >> deserializer for >> my haskell owl 1.1 library. I've read through the syntax document >> [1] and >> also through the xsd but these alone don't give enough info to be >> able to >> work out exactly what goes where. > > Not to mention that the XML syntax documents examples are > horrifically unfriendly, what with qnames from hell scattered > about. I find it much pleasanter to read/write with a default > namespace for the syntax. > >> In particular, I couldn't find examples in >> these docs about how to treat data values or annotations. >> >> I'm resorting to generating little bits of OWL 1.1 in protege4 and >> then making >> my code round-trip to this. Not ideal, as I'll end up reproducing >> any bugs in >> the OWL 1.1 library used by protege4. >> >> Is there a normative 'how to roundtrip the uml/functional syntax >> with xml' >> document? > > No, but there should be. I keep meaning to take up the XML syntax > document which was quite neglected, but other things intervene. > Presuming there will be a WG, I would imagine this is something > they could take up. For now, if you are taking notes on what you're > doing you could either file them as issues or you could set up a > wiki page (or a side document) to keep track on: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/ > > I have a sneaky idea on how to specify this... > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2007 14:45:31 UTC