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

RE: Jan Wielemaker is o.k. I think

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:55:03 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011D9A35@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <ivan@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Me too.

And I think that neither of the two proposed approaches could be seen as a
serious replacement for OWL/XML. 

The second approach would not have any advantage at all, AFIACT, because it
would even be a /restricted/ version of RDF/XML. So it would be genuinely
the triple view. 

And I would expect the first one, with additional parseType declarations, to
be at least very limited, because it would also still strongly adhere to the
triple view, with only some potential fanciness at the node positions.
What's more, this syntax of OWL would still be strongly bound to the striped
format of RDF/XML, and that's what we really want to avoid, do we?

This doesn't mean that I disregard Jan's basic idea of having one basic
serialization syntax for RDF, and then extend it for the different SemWeb
languages. I only believe that it won't help us (or POWDER, or ...) too
much, in particular not with RDF/XML(-ABBREV) as the base language.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:39 PM
>To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk; ivan@w3.org; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Jan Wielemaker is o.k. I think
>As do I.
>On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
><pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> I agree.
>> peter
>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: Jan Wielemaker is o.k. I think
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:43:28 +0000
>>> I agree that this was an "ACK - OK (minimally)".
>>> Ian
>>> On 19 Mar 2009, at 15:29, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> I interpreted Jan's answer:
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>>>> as a (minimally) o.k. I may continue some one-one discussions with
>>>> on private emails but, I think, we can consider that one as closed.
>>>> I would appreciate if somebody cross checked, just to be clear.
>>>> Ivan
>>>> --
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 20:55:51 UTC

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