W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Manchester syntax track

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:57:04 +0000
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <BBF1C70D-5B31-4A67-B3B3-A6BA777CFBCA@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>


On 9 Dec 2008, at 20:22, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>
>> Also, I would be interested in what people thought? As I said, I see
>> arguments both ways, but have been getting a bit more pro-rec-track
>> feedback than I was before.
>
> My sense is that making it Rec Track would amount to the WG saying
> "everyone who wants a human-readable serialization for OWL 2 SHOULD  
> use
> the Manchester Syntax."

Are you sure? How comes it wouldn't say "everyone who wants a human- 
readable serialization for OWL 2 SHOULD *consider* to use the  
Manchester Syntax -- yet everybody is free to invent their own, e.g.,  
application-specific or language-specific one. Moreover, if you claim  
you support Manchester Syntax, this is what you should be supporting."

I think there are 3 points to this:

- [for implementors] a  document with describes Manchester syntax  
exactly, so that implementors can agree.

- [for users] if you want, e.g., to show snippets of your ontology in  
a paper, then it would make probably a lot of sense to use Manchester  
syntax (and this is where I like the "should") - and it should be ok  
to use it (and not have a "hey, why didn't you use one of the standard  
ones?" review)

- [for users ] if you want to build some editor for a medical ontology  
(or a chemistry one or what have you), then you still could start with  
Manchester Syntax, but you are free to use whatever use most  
suitable...?!



> Even if, in their text, our documents
> explicitely disclaims this idea, the word "Recommendation" carries too
> much weight to avoid this reading.    And I don't think the WG wants  
> to
> say that, but I could be wrong.
>

...I would want to say that/my slightly rephrased version of it.  
Cheers, Uli

>    -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:58:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT