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

Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:38:52 -0500
Message-Id: <8FFCD158-BDCC-460F-A6C0-270D12B62564@gmail.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I think specifying Manch syntax is worth considering, given that  
there is commercial deployment experience and a decent following for  
it. Possible routes for doing this would be submission, WG note, Rec  
track, along the lines of the XML syntax. That would address the  
legitimate concern about it's status, and might be an overall  
positive contribution to the community (does anyone know of an actual  
reference for it currently? I always land up futzing in the editor  
trying to get rid of the red underlines ;-).

Thoughts from others?

-Alan


On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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 23:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 January 2008 23:39:08 GMT