- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:56:07 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 6:56 PM -0500 2/13/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >Here are my current thoughts on why OWL should not use the same syntax as >RDF, no matter what we do with the semantics. > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider >Bell Labs Research WOWG members - A decision to move away from RDF syntax would be a significant departure from DAML+OIL and thus a major stretching of our charter. It is probably permissible (would need to discuss w/Guus and get approval of W3C-semweb-CG as well) but would need significant justification and a firm consensus that this is clearly preferred by all the members who agree that this is a significant technical improvement over DAML+OIL. This particularly includes those people building web tools (who already have a vested stake in that syntax) and those who are also on the RDF Core WG as well as WOWG. Note also that Frank van Harmelen pointed out at the f2f that we could use a different presentation format (like N3, ntriples, something frame-like, etc.) and let parsers and tools build appropriate RDF. Again, strong evidence would need to be presented that this is insufficient or problematic in some compelling ways. Thus, "ugliness" of representation is not a compelling argument. Also, please note that the charter mandates XML compliance, and thus if anyone wants to go further than what Peter has suggested and scrap XML as well, that would be ruled out of charter. -Jim H. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 19:56:16 UTC