- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:57:04 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 9 Dec 2008, at 20:22, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >> Also, I would be interested in what people thought? As I said, I see >> arguments both ways, but have been getting a bit more pro-rec-track >> feedback than I was before. > > My sense is that making it Rec Track would amount to the WG saying > "everyone who wants a human-readable serialization for OWL 2 SHOULD > use > the Manchester Syntax." Are you sure? How comes it wouldn't say "everyone who wants a human- readable serialization for OWL 2 SHOULD *consider* to use the Manchester Syntax -- yet everybody is free to invent their own, e.g., application-specific or language-specific one. Moreover, if you claim you support Manchester Syntax, this is what you should be supporting." I think there are 3 points to this: - [for implementors] a document with describes Manchester syntax exactly, so that implementors can agree. - [for users] if you want, e.g., to show snippets of your ontology in a paper, then it would make probably a lot of sense to use Manchester syntax (and this is where I like the "should") - and it should be ok to use it (and not have a "hey, why didn't you use one of the standard ones?" review) - [for users ] if you want to build some editor for a medical ontology (or a chemistry one or what have you), then you still could start with Manchester Syntax, but you are free to use whatever use most suitable...?! > Even if, in their text, our documents > explicitely disclaims this idea, the word "Recommendation" carries too > much weight to avoid this reading. And I don't think the WG wants > to > say that, but I could be wrong. > ...I would want to say that/my slightly rephrased version of it. Cheers, Uli > -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:58:19 UTC