Re: CURIE proposal ...

On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:03, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2008, at 02:36, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> I'm such a flip-flopper; maybe I should run for President.
>>>
>>> While I liked Axel's proposal, I think I also get Michael's  
>>> point, that
>>> (to paraphrase) the Presentation Syntax is not a real rule  
>>> language.  If
>>> we want a real (usable) rule lanuage, we should carefully design  
>>> one,
>>> not just add random patches to the PS.
>> [snip]
>> It's a fantasy, in my experience, to think that something called a  
>> "Presentation Syntax" is *not* going to get used as a concrete  
>> syntax. It will just be an underspecified one. (See the old OWL  
>> abstract syntax for one example.)
>
> even there, it was useful to write down examples.

You miss the point. If you have something that's useful to write down  
examples with, people *will use it * for more than just writing down  
examples.

>> What's the objection to using XML directly?
>
> see my last mail.

You were arguing for a real non-xml syntax. That's fine, if the group  
wants to take that up. If it *doesn't*, then I think that XML is  
better than a Presentation Syntax (though I acknowledge the pain).

(The analogy with turtle isn't quite right. Part of the RDF history  
is the nastiness (real and perceived) of RDF/XML. There are plenty of  
specs which use only XML (WSDL, XML Schema, etc. etc. etc.).)

My point is that a halfway stop is no good. Either have a fully  
specced Presentation Syntax or use the XML directly.

Cheers,
Bijan.