- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:14:50 +0000
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ian Horrocks wrote: > o Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? > (See [1] and thread.) That seems to be a different issue from issue 2, but that is perhaps too pedantic. === I also note that I think that are differences between us concerning the cost of vocab items (particularly in the RDF syntax). I think many in the OWL Full community see additional cost associated with each and every term added, and are unconvinced by motivations such as language symmetry and/or strong round-tripping requirements. OTOH I suspect the OWL Full semantic concerns, which can also motivate additional vocab items over-and-above what the DL community would need, are unlikely to generate much excitement outside the Full community. (An example would be the owl:withXMLSchema property in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XSDinRDFXML#Using_the_first_unnamed_datatypes_in_RDF.2FXML ) Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 12:15:14 UTC