- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:07:36 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-grddl-comments@w3.org" <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> From: Bijan Parsia > [ . . . ] > In the OWL/XML case we have: > 1) an existing specification (at the W3C) for a format closely > identified with semweb It seems to me that the lack of an executable GRDDL transformation for OWL/XML would push us toward two separate Semantic Webs: The RDF-based Semantic Web and the OWL/XML-based Semantic Web. IMO, there must be only one Semantic Web, and its lingua franca must be RDF. The value of providing an executable GRDDL transformation from OWL/XML to RDF far outweighs the risk that it may conflict with the OWL2 spec. Furthermore, if a conflict with the spec is found, the GRDDL transformation can be fixed. I think it would be wrong to assume that all tools that may benefit from consuming OWL/XML will be sophisticated enough to know all about OWL2 or know where to find the best OWL/XML to RDF translator. The reason for GRDDL in the first place is to avoid the problem of requiring document consumers to have specialized prior knowledge of every XML format that they wish to consume as RDF. OWL/XML is such a format also. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:09:18 UTC