- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:26:06 -0500 (EST)
- To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
- Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> Subject: Re: Primer review, part 1 Introduction, Orientation sections Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:43:06 -0500 > I would prefer Turtle (which has at least some status) to Manchester > Syntax and/or OWL XML - let's at least add Turtle - it's easily > mappable to RDF/XML but more readable - Hmm. Actually, as far as I can tell, Turtle is not mappable to RDF/XML because Turtle is supposed to allow writing down arbitrary RDF graphs, but RDF/XMl cannot. See http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising for more information. I was looking for the mapping from Turtle to RDF graphs or RDF triples and couldn't find one. There is certainly no mapping in the team submission. peter > 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 -- I would prefer we use Formal syntax, RDF/ > XML and Turtle if we're going to use more than one. > -JH
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 14:55:50 UTC