Re: more FPWDs?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: more FPWDs? (was Re: Possible new public working draft?)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:07:35 +0000

> I think having a GRDDL transform would send a positive message to an RDF
> community that often (rightly or wrongly) feels the OWL community it on
> another planet.
> 
> In particular it would mean that an OWL 1.1 document written for OWL 1.1
> tools that did not want to know about RDF would be usable (to some
> extent) by RDF tools that did not want to know about OWL.
> 
> At this stage having the transform is unrealistic. So indicating an
> intent to have one, would be the next best thing
> 
> Jeremy

Do we know whether a semantics-preserving transform for OWL ontologies
from OWL/XML to RDF/XML is within the capabilities of GRDDL?

If we advertise that the transform is coming and then fail to produce it
we will most likely have quite a bit of explaining to do.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 14:26:43 UTC