- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:24:10 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 18 Mar 2009, at 08:01, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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." +1 Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:24:46 UTC