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: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:02:21 +0200
Message-ID: <406AEB8D.5080909@virgilio.it>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> [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

Ah right, thanks, I seem to have missed this.

>
> 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.

Hmm, must confess I'm in two minds. For true human-legibility a total 
replacement certainly is better, but something along the lines of  my 
suggestion would keep most of the key parts of the RDF machine-readable 
in the interchange syntax, while the tasty part (the interface 
definition itself) is human readable directly, machine readable given a 
little translation. Of course pretty much any syntax can be used 
locally, and translated at the end points, so it's not a big deal in any 
case...

The choice of a Lisp-like syntax is interesting. Who the target audience 
for this? If it's 'old school' krep folks, then it's bound to do well. 
However if the aim is to get web developers to use it, then I'd 
anticipate resistance, and would have thought swapping the braces for 
angle brackets (a la OWL Presentation Syntax) would be good politics ;-)

But on both points, given that work that has already been done on the 
surface syntax I'd lean towards the current approach.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
----
Raw
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 11:02:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:03:41 UTC