- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:27:25 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 5 Nov 2008, at 18:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] >>> A nit on the must accept/generate RDF/XML. Because of the syntactic >>> restrictions in RDF/XML that prevent serialization of all RDF, for >>> some OWL 2 Full document one MUST do something that isn't >>> possible. I >>> suggest a footnote saying something about this. An alternative would >>> be to specify that NTRIPLES must be acceptable as well. >> >> I would just amend the text to "MUST, if possible". > > I be happy with that but would prefer to couple it with something > indicating that the other syntaxes SHOULD not be used in such a way as > to not have it be possible for the RDF/XML to serialize their > contents. [snip] But how else to do it? I mean, I think if you want to use URIs as properties that are incompatible with RDF/XML not only *should* you use one of the other serializations (OWL/XML i would hope) but you *have* to. You want a constraint on property names. Given that the RDF documents say nothing in this regard, I don't think we should either. I don't think this "SHOULD" does anything more effective than the fact of RDF/XML (and our constraint on producing it and consuming it) already does. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 19:25:02 UTC