W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:55:12 +0000
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D3F62CA5-C621-4EC6-AA38-73BFD93BA041@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 9 Mar 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 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.

One must remember that OWL has a structure that is "above" the triple  
level. So, adopting Trix, for example, doesn't really make the *OWL*  
aspects of the ontology salient and natural to the XML toolchain.

> In an ideal world he has a point.

Not really :)

> 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.

Indeed.

> As for the core answer for FH3: I am not sure WSDL is a good example.

OWL-S suffered for not having this. A lot.

> Yes, I know, there are some services doing something with OWL but are
> they really based on Web Services with WSDL descriptions? I

Yes. As I pointed out before:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/200710311232.31360.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>

> do not think
> that is so frequent.

It's not frequent at the moment because RDF/XML is not well suited to  
incorporation in them.

> Personally, I find the possible usage of
> XPath+XSLT, XML syntax and schema oriented editors, possibly even  
> XQuery
> better examples there.

They are all good, IMHO, but it's just wrong not to point to an actual  
deployed use.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 09:56:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 March 2009 09:56:06 GMT