W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > March 2004

Re: strawman concise syntax (was Re: [OWL-S] new IOPE example #1)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:22:15 -0500
Message-Id: <CEED6EA8-831E-11D8-8F97-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
To: danny666@virgilio.it

On Mar 31, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> *Not* another new serialization of RDF, but apologies, it is a little 
> off-topic.
> I couldn't help being struck by the verbosity and syntax complexity of 
> David's example. Ok, I'm sure this has been raised before, and in this 
> spec definition phase with RDF/XML as the interchange language I 
> suppose that's to some extent understandable. But might it still not 
> make sense to express things like this in a more concise language that 
> was originally designed for specifying processes, i.e. a programming 
> language. e.g.

[snip]

Danny, our current solution for this problem is to provide a completely 
distinct surface syntax that is more concise and more readable and 
encodes into the syntactic structure much of the stuff we must make 
explicit in OWL.

A current version of the proposal (which is a bit Lispy at the moment):
	http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/surface.pdf

I'm interesting to know if you think mixing RDF and some other syntax a 
la your proposal is better than having a complete drop in replacement. 
I'm inclined to the latter, myself.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:22:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:55 GMT