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

RE: LANG: Proposal to close issue 5.17 - XML syntax

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:38:57 -0600
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1035934738.24110.8402.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 17:30, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> > Er... we have a normative RDF/XML syntax. That's not
> > at issue here.
> 
> So, the normative RDF/XML syntax defines the OWL tags?

Yes... at least, I think so; I'm not sure I understand
the question.

The OWL refernce gives URIs for terms (properties, classes, ...)
and says that you can write OWL KBs/formulas using
RDF/XML syntax, which encodes the terms
as XML tags.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:33 PM
> To: Smith, Michael K
> Cc: Jim Hendler; webont
> Subject: RE: LANG: Proposal to close issue 5.17 - XML syntax
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:24, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> > 
> > The one thing I find odd about this is that our documents are using
> examples
> > that depend on an XML syntax.
> 
> Er... we have a normative RDF/XML syntax. That's not
> at issue here.
> 
> What's at issue here is a non-normative XML presentation
> syntax.
> 
> >  What mechanism are we going to use to ensure
> > document consistency if we leave this for some future time?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:38:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT