W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Why does OWL have an XML presentation syntax?

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:15:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3F578F41.2020103@openhealth.org>
To: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: "Www-Rdf-Interest@W3. Org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Matt Halstead wrote:

>
> I'm not actually sure what the value of OWL/XML syntax is, I am 
> finding it hard to find a place where an OWL/XML document is useful 
> for a machine. If it is meant to be useful to humans and not machines 
> then I guess I'd rather look at KIF or abstract syntax.

The _exchange syntax_ for OWL is RDF/XML. Several folks thought it might 
be useful to have different _presentation syntaxes_ for OWL, one of 
which is XML, another UML etc. You clearly don't find the XML 
presentation syntax useful, which is fine. I suspect that the folks 
who've developed the OWL XML presentation syntax do find it useful for 
their purposes, which is also fine. If by KIF you meen an s-expression 
based syntax, there is nothing preventing you from developing one for OWL.

> I'm always learning something new about the core intentions of XML, so 
> someone pointing out why there is an OWL/XML syntax would help me.
>
XML is a specification, so it doesn't itself have intentions. I am sure 
that among the millions of people who use XML there are a variety of 
intentions regarding how it should be used. There is an OWL XML syntax 
simply because some people thought it would be useful to have one. The 
WebOnt WG felt that if there were going to be several presenation 
syntaxes for OWL, that one of these should be XML. I think it is useful 
if only as an example of how a specific XML syntax might be more compact 
than an equivalent RDF/XML syntax. In the case of OWL, the RDF/XML 
although more verbose, isn't all that more verbose. Just my opinion.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 15:30:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT