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

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:22:00 -0500
Message-ID: <062501c1d6af$5db46990$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeff Heflin wrote:
>
> ... Furthermore, there is certainly nothing in the charter that
> says the ontology language's syntax must be formed from RDF triples.

What is wrong with? (assume daml:collection, and forget about the RDF
expansion into daml:List. etc.)

<Class rdf:ID="foo">
        <oneOf>
                <Thing rdf:resource="#A"/>
                <Thing rdf:resource="#B"/>
                <Thing rdf:resource="#C"/>
        </oneOf>
</Class>

This really isn't that bad XML.

An advantage of RDF's XML syntax is that it gives us nested class
definitions for free e.g.

<Class rdf:ID="bar">
        <intersectionOf>
                    <Class>
                            <Restriction>
                                    <onProperty rdf:resource="#a">
                                    <toClass rdf:resource="#foo">
                            </Restriction>
                    </Class>
            ...
        </intersectionOf>
</Class>

My questions are:

What do I get by using another XML syntax? (what do I _actually get_)
What does it cost me?

I need concrete answers to these questions.

In the absense of an  actual concrete syntax I can't judge if the benefits
would be worth the cost, regardless of what the charter allows.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 18:25:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT