W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:27:06 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <9689.1221233226@ubuhebe>

> 
> On 12 Sep 2008, at 16:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't RDF/XML *the* RDF serialization?
> >
> > That we have turtle in the Primer is just one piece of evidence that
> > this is not the case. As I said, and as had been argued persuasively
> > in the past, a solution that is specific to a particular serialization
> > of RDF is undesirable.
> 
> We don't spec a Turtle serialization of OWL.
> 
> It seems very odd to constrain ourselves from using standard, widely  
> implemented, W3C technologies as they are intended to be used in  
> order to accommodate a non-normative syntax over which we do not  
> have, nor do we desire, any control.

I don't know what the issue here it, but on this point I'll jump in:
it's been clear since at least the 2001 charter for RDF Core that
RDF/XML was not intended to be the only standard serialization of RDF.
RIF BLD frames are probably a Rec Track serialization of RDF, and Turtle
is certainly a de facto standard serialization or RDF.

    -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC