Re: CURIEs - ISSUE-14

• From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:37:22 -0500
• To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
• Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <158112A3-992E-474E-BE12-2694C232D6FB@gmail.com>

On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>> The proposal was solely for use in functional syntax.
>
> That's probably OK - although I am unclear how abstract or concrete  
> the functional syntax is meant to be. If it is merely an internal  
> notation for the WG, then whatever we do is OK, but in such a case  
> we wouldn't really have an issue (I don't think). I take it that  
> this is intended to impact some software, but which software?

The OWLAPI, at least, which accepts functional syntax and outputs RDF/ 
XML or whatever you want. I've used the abstract syntax (or rather a  
thin lispy layer on top of it) to generate OWL for some time now.

-Alan

Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 19:37:41 UTC