- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:59:23 +0000
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > But I do not understand what advantage have these conditional rules > for > backwards compatibility. Think roundtripping. > I do not even understand where the FS-to-RDF > mapping touches questions of backwards compatibility. Isn't backwards > compatibility only a relevant topic for the RDF-2-FS mapping [3] ? Even without precise roundtripping, you need to be able to get from a FS ontology to an OWL 1.0 RDF/XML document, which means that, where possible, you need to reuse old constructs. The new constructs were introduced to cope with ambiguity when you pun, so using them everywhere seems a bit harsh. I wouldn't mind *encouraging* using the typed vocabulary everywhere, but I also suspect that people interested in doing that would use the XML syntax. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 22:59:43 UTC