- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:08:38 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Kaarel Kaljurand <kaljurand@gmail.com>, Anne Cregan <annec@cse.unsw.edu.au>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > I agree that rendering to a constrained dialect of English is an > interesting user-interface technique; For my money, using quasi-natural language as UI is orthogonal to a more human-friendly syntax for writing OWL (and for some display contexts). What I'd like to see a new OWL WG standardize is something that plays a role analogous to the role N3 (well, Turtle, really) plays for RDF. Something like Manchester OWL Syntax is more like an "N3 for OWL" than one of these quasi-natural language things. The market needs both, but I'd prefer the WG standardize the concise, scribblable sufarce syntax than the quasi-natural language presentation syntax, if it couldn't do both. I think the quasi- natural thing is *much* harder and should be outside the scope of OWL 1.next. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 21:07:33 UTC