W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: LANG: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:29:34 +0100
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEIICDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jeff: [1]
> opinion. All I ask is that we leave the option to use a non-RDF triples
> syntax open.

Guus and Jim: [2]
> We also believe that we must rule that discussion of syntaxes which
> are not in XML and RDF are out of scope, unless they are being
> recommended as "presentation syntax"

Jeremy: [3]
> We develop an XSLT transform from the light [XML] sytax into the full set
of
> heavy triples and [...].

I remain confident that it is very possible to both have our cake and eat
it.

We could even mandate the inclusion of the appropriate processing
instruction at the top of an OWL Lite document that informs a non-OWL Lite
aware processor to apply the XSLT transform. That way an XSLT and RDF/XML
aware processor could read an OWL Lite document without knowing it.

I guess I feel that a frame oriented XML syntax that isn't constrained by
RDF/XML's idiosnycronicies is worth the investment. I have a stronger desire
for maintaining a view of an ontology as a set of RDF triples. I don't think
these conflict; unless we have a scheduling/resourcing problem.

Jeremy

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0344.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0313.html

[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0260.html
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 13:30:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT