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

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:56:44 -0400
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((((OWL)))) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8042EE83-C7FF-46E8-9EEB-9F4A842B7F61@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

  As I cannot attend this week's meeting (I'm on travel, out of the US  
and unable to phone in), I'd like to give my opinion re:  the question  
re: Manchester syntax (and other serializations) in the primer .  I  
think we need to be careful on our choice of which syntactic  
realizations to include.  There are at least another 4-5 RDF  
serializations floating around out there that I know.  Some, like N3  
and Ntriples, have some W3C legitimacy, some, are used in popular  
tools (like the SWOOP notation), some are used in some other research  
papers (I noticed 2-3 in various presentations at ISWC last year). .   
Manchester has a somehat more mature realization than many of these,  
but it is still defined in a document with only a draft syntax and no  
publication status (i.e. copyright etc) [1].  In a previous email  
thread it was pointed out that some of the OWL tools handle it, but  
then most also handle N3 (which is more widely used) and SWOOP, for  
example, has it's own which (and SWOOP is still highly used, despite  
not being supported at the moment).
  My proposal would be that we need some specific criteria for what is  
and is not used in the document. Once we have agreed to principles, we  
can agree to which serializations to include -- I believe it is  
important that the document include some discussion of that criterion  
as well, so that we cannot be accused of arbitrarily choosing without  
   -Jim H.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax

On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:16 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> We will discuss steps towards our next working drafts. As we  
> discussed at the teleconference last week, if you have time, please  
> read the current documents that we are considering for working  
> draft, and bring issues to the teleconference. As in the previous  
> release, we need to know how we will handle disputes - are we  
> comfortable marking them with editor notes, as previous, or are  
> there any issues that must be resolved before publishing.
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
> We would like to have two independent reviewers for each document.  
> Please consider volunteering to be a reviewer for one or more  
> document.
> An issue I know to be outstanding re: the Primer is the use of  
> Manchester syntax. Please give some thought to whether you think  
> this is a good or bad idea, and why and be prepared to defend your  
> position.
> Agenda to follow tomorrow.
> -Alan

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 07:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC