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

Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:26:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080122.092606.201659395.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:43:06 -0500

> I would prefer Turtle (which has at least some status) to Manchester  
> Syntax and/or OWL XML - let's at least add Turtle - it's easily  
> mappable to RDF/XML but more readable - 

Hmm.  Actually, as far as I can tell, Turtle is not mappable to RDF/XML
because Turtle is supposed to allow writing down arbitrary RDF graphs,
but RDF/XMl cannot.  See
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
for more information.

I was looking for the mapping from Turtle to RDF graphs or RDF triples
and couldn't find one.  There is certainly no mapping in the team
submission.

peter

> 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 -- I would prefer we use Formal syntax, RDF/ 
> XML and Turtle if we're going to use more than one.
>   -JH
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 14:55:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2008 14:55:53 GMT