W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > June 2003

[moved to www-rdf-logic] Re: Presentation Syntax - why?

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:04:18 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f10bb14c00658fd@[10.0.1.2]>
To: <danny666@virgilio.it>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Danny- Thanks for your email about the presentation syntax Working 
Draft.  I have written a long reply, but have taken the liberty of 
moving it to www-rdf-logic, which is also a public mailing list. This 
will help people who want to follow this thread without being 
inundated with responses to last call comments on our previous 
documents and avoid confusion with the current Last Call on the Test 
document.
  The thread on RDF logic can be found at:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2003Jun/0046.html
for those wishing to continue this discussion.
  -Jim Hendler




At 11:47 AM +0200 6/17/03, Danny Ayers wrote:
>At times it seems that the real activity of the WG can only be seen like the
>structure of DNA was through X-Rays. A strange crystal that has just
>appeared on a plate is the OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax
>Note [1]. There doesn't appear to be any documentation of the role of
>languages like this, and it's hard to place it in context.
>
>Reading the documentation for OWL it is clear that the intention was for it
>to be a layer directly on top of RDF and RDFS, yet what the AS&S describes
>needs a significant translation from OWL->RDF [2] and is currently only
>mappable in the RDF->OWL direction through quite a convoluted procedure [3].
>
>The impression this gives is that AS&S has in large part been constructed as
>an entirely new language, with the RDF(S) considerations being retrofitted
>late in the day. How much truth there is in this isn't really important,
>what is important is that the roadmap has become smudged.
>
>I believe significant clarification is required around certain issues, in
>particular those that lead to the Presentation Syntax. It appears that this
>is a concrete representation of the AS&S, but for what purpose? If the
>underlying model used by the AS&S is compatible with the RDF graph/triples
>model, then why not use RDF/XML? Or is there such an air gap between the RDF
>and OWL layers, that the OWL can fly free with it's own model, syntax and
>serialization?
>
>On a practical level, the question is simple if a developer wishes to build
>a Semantic Web application, where do they start? If they start with RDF now,
>will they need a rework to be able to include OWL features without the
>struggle of [3]? Or if they start with OWL AS&S will they lose the
>compatibility with existing RDF data without building tools to carry out the
>transformations of [2]?
>
>I realise this is relatively early days for OWL, it just seems from what's
>being delivered that sometimes there are triples being asserted that are
>dark for anyone outside of the WG.
>
>Cheers,
>Danny.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-owl-xmlsyntax-20030611/
>
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/mapping.html#4.1
>
>[3] http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/owl/parsing.shtml
>
>----
>
>http://dannyayers.com

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
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)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 09:04:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT