Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54

Feel free to ignore this, but:  If it were me I'd seriously trim it to:

You are correct that a completely XML "friendly" encoding of RDF could
indeed be used to encode OWL 2 ontologies and could, therefore, be
used as part of a more complete XML workflow. However relying on a
generic XML format for RDF does not satisfy the requirements end users
have for such a serialization of OWL 2 because of the complexity of
queries needed to extract many meaningful OWL structures. Having a
specialized XML format designed for OWL 2 means that typical queries
will be easily expressed.

Note that having specialized formats for 'sub'-languages on the
Semantic Web is not specific to OWL. An example is the XML encoding of
Resource Descriptions in POWDER[2], which provides an XML syntax for
end users but also defines a formal transformation of that XML
encoding into OWL. As long as formats such as these clearly map to a
common and required exchange format (which is the case for OWL 2),
they can be valuable in serving various specialized communities
without damaging interoperability.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
<mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.