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

Re: WOWG: first language proposal

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:17:41 -0500
Message-ID: <024c01c1dcde$f1a86540$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> I think this indicates an interesting technique for resolving whether the
> lite syntax is either:
> - transformed into triples by already being in RDF/XML (Jonathan's
> preference?)
> or:
> - in an XML concrete syntax corresponding closely to the abstract syntax
> (Jeff's preference?), and then (my preference) transformed into RDF/XML by
> XSLT, and then into triples by RDF/XML.

No, really my position is that I would like to see an actual XML grammar
proposal i.e. a DTD, a RELAXNG schema, an XML Schema so that this can be
properly evaluated. I am not for making tiny little changes to what might be
expressed in RDF/XML. That said, unless something very close to
"daml:collection" is allowed by RDF, then I wouldn't favor an RDF/XML

XML has the clear advantage over RDF precisely given the fact that child
elements are true _sequences_ i.e. ordered and finite.

> The technique is:
>  - the initial (internal) draft is for an XML concrete syntax
> by RDF).
>  - advocates of RDF/XML as the syntax demonstrate how with little change
> can be made conformant RDF/XML
>  - we also explore how to transform the initial draft XML concrete syntax
> into an adequate set of triples.
> I confess to being nervous about the pure RDF/XML option, because of the
> round tripping problem. A possible solution is to follow Jonathan's
> suggestion but also (silently) requiring the reification of all the
> in the file and sticking them in a bag. This allows the preservation of
> (XML) document order. (It's a bit of a hack).

I've also demonstrated an actual concrete non-XML syntax which closely
follows the abstract syntax
http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/OWLNonXMLsyntax.text but haven't received
much comment on this.

I also think there is a real viable option of treating the RDF/XML syntax
_as XML_ in that it can be edited and roundtripped in its XML form, and need
not always be parsed into triples ... i.e. RDF/XML is actually XML and can
be used as XML. The advantage of this is that folks who want to use XML can
use XML and folks that want RDF can use RDF.

Again this is all predicated on things like daml:collection (the unexpanded
form) etc. which would make RDF usable. Without something like this, I would
favor another XML syntax.

Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 15:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC