- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:24:08 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 21 Jan 2008, at 16:43, Jim Hendler wrote: > I would prefer Turtle (which has at least some status) to > Manchester Syntax and/or OWL XML - let's at least add Turtle I'm happy to add turtle (though I'll probably wait until I have the auto-syntax generator working...better not to do all the conversions by hand like we did ;)), or really, any other syntax that readers might find helpful. We can always configure the default conservatively and leave the extra as options. > - it's easily mappable to RDF/XML but more readable - and it does > have a recognized document behind it now as well as history of use > in W3C SWA documents. The Manchester syntax appears to be defined > as the research results of a project called "Co-ode" which seems > not to have any sort of imprimitur -- [snip] As Rinke pointed out, Manchester syntax is used in Protege and in TopBraid composer (which is, as you know, a commercial project). Turtle was used as the syntax for SPARQL when it was only a Dave Beckett thing (and the Team Submission came out very close to rec time for SPARQL :)). On this model, I would be happy to draft up a spec for it as an appendix, or as a WG note or Member submission. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 23:22:14 UTC