Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:11:58 +0100

> Just a small note:
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [snip]
>> syntaxes, even though that document only defines one syntax.  The
>> Working group does not intend to make changes to the XML Serialization
>> document in response to your message.
> 
> I seem to remember that we did discuss the possibility of clarifying the
> status of OWL/XML with respect to others in the status part of the
> OWL/XML specification (which is the only 'change' the Jacco is
> explicitly asking for). Ie, I am not 100% this last statement is correct
> in the answer...
> 
> Ivan

We could start the XML Serialization document out something like:


This document defines the XML syntax for OWL 2, an alternative exchange
syntax for OWL 2 designed for use by XML tools (e.g., tools using, for
example, XQuery [XQuery]).  Although this XML syntax is designed as an
exchange syntax for OWL 2, RDF/XML remains the primary exchange syntax
for OWL---use of this syntax by OWL 2 tools is optional.

This syntax mirrors the
structural specification of OWL 2 [OWL 2 Specification] and is defined
by means of an XML schema [XML Schema], which is available as part of
this document. The XML schema has been obtained by a straightforward
translation of the structural specification of the OWL 2 Specification
[OWL 2 Specification] in the following way:  


If no one complains, I'll change the response to Jacco and edit the XML
Serialization document.

peter

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 12:56:55 UTC