RE: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments

At 12:52 -0700 4/5/04, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>As I understand it, RDF Schema is a subset of OWL, so why would the 
>abstract syntax would be less appropriate?
>
>Mike
>
>

because there is no reason for the whole world to have read the OWL 
S&AS document just so they can understand our examples -- esp. folks 
interested in RDF linking more than OWL's modeling properties.

>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: 	Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
>Sent:	Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:06 PM
>To:	Frank van Harmelen
>Cc:	Uschold, Michael F; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Subject:	Re: [ALL]  Human-friendly syntax for communicating 
>OWL fragments
>
>
>A further concern I have is that many Semantic Web users use mainly RDF
>with maybe just a tiny bit of OWL ... To communicate with them OWL Abstract
>Syntax is not appropriate.
>
>Jeremy

-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)