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

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:52:08 -0400
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((((OWL)))) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <260A905A-2D88-4665-A19A-9D3E98DECCC8@gmail.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

Makes sense. Can you suggest some criteria?

On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:56 AM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Alan-
> 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 cause.
>  -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 12:52:37 UTC

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