- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:25:24 +1000
- To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Bob Ferris wrote: > However, then you probably confuse people even more who are trying to get into Semantic Web, or? If we would have two separate serializations formats, then you have to teach people RDF/JSON and OWL/JSON, and convience them from their benefits and existence. The power of RDF Model is that it is a knowledge representation structure for the vocabulary level and the instantitation level. Otherwise, you would (prefer to) use OWL/JSON for vocabulary level serializations and RDF/JSON for instatiation level serializations. Finally, the size reduction would be a consequence of a more complex grammar, which might be a disadvantage. Bob, I actually agree with your point, but you will have noticed that many people in the OWL (2) community really don't care much about the Web and RDF aspects of the Semantic Web. So with the usual folks wanting yet another serialization, let them drift away further and further, into complete practical irrelevance. It's a shame that this is still done under the umbrella of the Semantic Web, but this is IMHO due to a bug in the W3C processes: any small community of enthusiasts can work on new standards, and other people typically don't care enough to prevent this from progressing. As soon as OWL 2 was moving away from its RDF foundation it should have been properly decoupled, and we wouldn't even ask those questions anymore. Sorry for the sarcasm. Regards, Holger
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 23:25:59 UTC