- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:53:20 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 13 Aug 2008, at 13:07, Ivan Herman wrote: > Jim, > > just to frame the discussion more precisely: afaik there are no > plans for publishing the M'ter syntax as a recommendation. There > might be a WG Note for the M'ter syntax, but only a note. So let us > not count that one in. > > I _personally_ view the XML syntax as some sort of an exchange syntax If you mean by "exchange syntax" to include the "sort of thing people might author with" then I agree. > and not a syntax for defining our spec (others may not agree with > me on that). It doesn't at the moment, but it could. It's possible for the XML syntax to replace the functional syntax though there'd be different pain places and it would be some work at a late stage in the came. > Ie, it does not have the same role and significance (again: for me) > than the functional syntax and the diagrams. Right. That's true. Same for the RDF syntax. It has a different role than the functional syntax and of the diagrams. Manchester Syntax is another "exchange" syntax. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:50:54 UTC