Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

In fact, re-reading Jan's comments, I realize that his remark is a
little bit different. He understands that the motivation for having
OWL/XML is to have something that works well in an XML infrastructure
but his claim is that an RDF WG should come up with an XML encoding of
RDF that would play well with XML (and use that to encode OWL) rather
than having a separate OWL/XML syntax.

In an ideal world he has a point. I guess the answer is that the XML
related community needs and XML encoding now and, at the moment, there
are no known plans at W3C to start an RDF core WG that would be
chartered to cover the issue. Furthermore, it would take several years
to get there.

As for the core answer for FH3: I am not sure WSDL is a good example.
Yes, I know, there are some services doing something with OWL but are
they really based on Web Services with WSDL descriptions? I do not think
that is so frequent. Personally, I find the possible usage of
XPath+XSLT, XML syntax and schema oriented editors, possibly even XQuery
better examples there.

Ivan

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> I prepared a minimal response as per our discussions. We could add more
> about motivation for XML if this is deemed appropriate (either for Frank
> or in response to Jan Wielemaker).
> 
> Ian
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf