W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2007

POWDER: thoughts

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:40:23 +0000
Message-ID: <47669867.20409@hpl.hp.com>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
CC: www-archive@w3.org, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>



Hmmmm, trying to think constructively.

A loose stab at the requirements for these aspects of the design


1) The POWDER file should be fairly easy to write, by hand if necessary, 
and not require a specialised tool.

2) The POWDER file should have a formal semantics.

3) The POWDER file should have an operational semantics.

4) It should not require too much specialist skill to implement the 
POWDER operational semantics.

5) The divergence between the formal semantics and the operational 
semantics should be small.

6) It should be possible to access (most of) the formal semantics of the 
POWDER file using off-the-shelf semantic web tools.

7) Within the off-the-shelf semantic web tools paradigm, POWDER has lots 
and lots of extensibility (like RDF).

8) However, not all that extensibility needs to be apparent in the 
operational semantics that specific POWDER tools might be using.

====

So, as an example, while in RDF and OWL we can declare a subClass of 
wdr:ResourceSet, a POWDER specific tool might just use an XML parser, 
with no Semantic Web capabilities, and hence ignore such a subClass 
while treating wdr:ResourceSet in a special way.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:40:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:12 GMT