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."

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:02:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC