W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:24:08 +0000
Message-Id: <F063068B-729C-4F9C-9594-F2364722F7F9@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 21 Jan 2008, at 16:43, Jim Hendler wrote:

> I would prefer Turtle (which has at least some status) to  
> Manchester Syntax and/or OWL XML - let's at least add Turtle

I'm happy to add turtle (though I'll probably wait until I have the  
auto-syntax generator working...better not to do all the conversions  
by hand like we did ;)), or really, any other syntax that readers  
might find helpful. We can always configure the default  
conservatively and leave the extra as options.

> - it's easily mappable to RDF/XML but more readable - and it does  
> have a recognized document behind it now as well as history of use  
> in W3C SWA documents.  The Manchester syntax appears to be defined  
> as the research results of a project called "Co-ode" which seems  
> not to have any sort of imprimitur --

As Rinke pointed out, Manchester syntax is used in Protege and in  
TopBraid composer (which is, as you know, a commercial project).  
Turtle was used as the syntax for SPARQL when it was only a Dave  
Beckett thing (and the Team Submission came out very close to rec  
time for SPARQL :)). On this model, I would be happy to draft up a  
spec for it as an appendix, or as a WG note or Member submission.

Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 23:22:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC