Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

POWDER should go to PR fairly soon.

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
> Subject: RE: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29
> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:46:42 +0100
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
>>>> And it should at least be
>>>> acceptable that an OWL WG /may/ produce such a "genuine" XML syntax.
>>>> Just as
>>>> other SemWeb languages do, such as SWRL, RIF and Powder.
>>> Precise pointers for these could be used in our replies.
>> * SWRL XML Concrete Syntax:
>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/#5>
>>
>> * RIF/BLD XML Schema: 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-bld-20080730/#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF
>> -BLD>
>>
>> * POWDER Web Description Resources XML Schema (WDR):
>> <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder/wdr.xsd>
>>
>> Note: The POWDER Formal Semantics document at
>>
>>   <http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/>
>>
>> often uses both POWDER/XML *and* RDF/XML alongside in its examples.
>>
>> Michael
> 
> Excellent, thanks.
> 
> Unfortunately, none of these are further down the W3C REC road than we.
> 
> peter

-- 

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