Re: response to FH3

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.