- From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:41:12 -0400
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'public-owl-wg Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "'Peter Haase'" <haase@fzi.de>, "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Bijan, > I answered: All of it usefully generalizes, afaict, over the current > concrete syntaxes. How about the RDF/XML syntax that can bundles everything "about" a class under one element (eg, disjointWith, subclassOf, etc, inside one <owl:class></owl:class> element)? In the OWL 2 W3C abstract syntax this is broken up into separate elements (one for subclassOf, one for disjointness, etc). The OWL 2 metamodel would likewise use separate elements for this, whereas the OWL 1 metamodel (or an OWL 2 metamodel based on RDF/XML) would put them under one. > The current flavor. I'm genuinely confused. I can look at a diagram > and see how it corresponds to the functional syntax and the xml > syntax and the manchester syntax and the rdf syntax without too much > difficulty. Sure, you do the mapping in your head. I would say most hackers on RDF/XML will want something more direct. The W3C abstract syntax is useful of course, but the question is for who. If the W3C abstract syntax becomes more commonly used, rather than just a favorite of DLers, then a metamodel for it would be as important as one based on RDF/XML. I don't think that's happened yet. Conrad
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 20:42:08 UTC