- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:55:12 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Mar 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote: > In fact, re-reading Jan's comments, I realize that his remark is a > little bit different. He understands that the motivation for having > OWL/XML is to have something that works well in an XML infrastructure > but his claim is that an RDF WG should come up with an XML encoding of > RDF that would play well with XML (and use that to encode OWL) rather > than having a separate OWL/XML syntax. One must remember that OWL has a structure that is "above" the triple level. So, adopting Trix, for example, doesn't really make the *OWL* aspects of the ontology salient and natural to the XML toolchain. > In an ideal world he has a point. Not really :) > I guess the answer is that the XML > related community needs and XML encoding now and, at the moment, there > are no known plans at W3C to start an RDF core WG that would be > chartered to cover the issue. Furthermore, it would take several years > to get there. Indeed. > As for the core answer for FH3: I am not sure WSDL is a good example. OWL-S suffered for not having this. A lot. > Yes, I know, there are some services doing something with OWL but are > they really based on Web Services with WSDL descriptions? I Yes. As I pointed out before: <http://www.w3.org/mid/200710311232.31360.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> > do not think > that is so frequent. It's not frequent at the moment because RDF/XML is not well suited to incorporation in them. > Personally, I find the possible usage of > XPath+XSLT, XML syntax and schema oriented editors, possibly even > XQuery > better examples there. They are all good, IMHO, but it's just wrong not to point to an actual deployed use. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 09:56:05 UTC