> > If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, it'd > be bearable. But > for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems pretty > heavy, given > that the triples are implied. > No - strong disagreement. In OWL there are many triples which are redundant because they are implied. However, it is hard to tell which triples are redundant and which are not. End users need clear and simply guide lines. One such guideline is "everything must have a type". For syntaxes which omit redundant triples, then we can easily hypothesis an intermediate stage that inserts them. And anyway future syntaxes for both OWL and RDF are likely to either: - list every triple explicitly or - be transformation based either way I think your argument fails. JeremyReceived on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:20:57 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT