- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:54:43 +1000
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > It'd be nice to get back to technical issues. There are some very clear technical advantages of trying to stay compatible with RDF. For example uniform storage and APIs via RDF triple stores. Or the extensibility of RDF-based language that has been thrown away by hard-coding only a pre-selected choice of OWL constructs [1]. Or having a proper stack of languages, where one language of a family can be used in conjunction with another. The two of us had already discussed that using SPARQL and OWL together is very difficult with OWL 2-based APIs. While I can understand the desire to have optimized solutions for your side of the story, I have seen enough practical evidence (e.g. from our customer base) that the confusion caused by all those dialects and serializations is actually an obstacle to the adoption of this technology. And regarding JSON or not, of course I am all in favor of using JSON with Semantic Web languages. The new RDF working group is already working on grammars for this. But since the OWL 2 people have departed from RDF, they will of course now also need to duplicate this work, and again come up with something that throws away some very fundamental ideas of the Semantic Web. Holger [1] http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-owl-fails.html
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 23:55:18 UTC