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

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

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:25:07 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322141187C21D@USPLM207>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan,

I think this is the same discussion we had before. And you 
probably gave me pointers to the email message on the RDF
discussion thread that contains the latest version of the 
RDF/XML syntax that would be sufficient to account 
for OWL.  Should I provide a reference to that?  

You are asserting that if I write some XML without a single 
OWL tag, but that satisfies the RDF/XML standard, then I have 
written OWL.  Perhaps, given the semantic support for OWL/RDF, 
I have.  I still find this odd.  

Once I get past the examples, the best way I currently know 
of to determine what's legal OWL is to read the Reference, 
which gives a pretty good verbal description of the composition 
of OWL components.  

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 5:39 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 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 20:25:16 GMT

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