- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:52:08 -0400
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((((OWL)))) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Makes sense. Can you suggest some criteria? -Alan 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