W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:25:35 +0100
Message-ID: <49821ECF.2080604@danbri.org>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

On 29/1/09 22:21, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> As an afterthought:
> Perhaps we should include a fourth point about the fact that RDF/XML is
> not any more the only normative exchange syntax. This may very well
> hamper interoperability between the SKOS/RDF and OWL2 world.

On this point, I tried briefly to understand how the rdf:text proposal 
would look in RDFa ... ... I don't think it'd be pretty (unless @content 
is used extensively). Literals would contain extra materials not 
intended for human consumption.

Not 100% sure on that, but if I understand rdf:text right, ...

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 21:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC