response to FH3

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