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

response to FH3

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0903180101p246c9fey123edf398a76944e@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As this comment questions the XML format, I suggest we include the
paragraph from JR8-2, included below, which provide compelling
precedent for having the format.

"Note that having specialized formats for 'sub'-languages on the
Semantic Web is not specific to OWL. A typical example might be 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 these languages clearly map on
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."

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:02:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:02:19 GMT