Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday November 21st, 2007

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