Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:17:40 +0100

> 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.

I don't see how this could work right.

In the current XML serialization, it is possible to XQuery for things
like QCRs.  How would that work if QCRs are broken up into triples, even
if you could use XQuery to find triples of a particular flavour?

> In an ideal world he has a point. 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.

And, even then, I don't see the result as being useful for the purposes
of the XML serialization.

> As for the core answer for FH3: I am not sure WSDL is a good example.
> Yes, I know, there are some services doing something with OWL but are
> they really based on Web Services with WSDL descriptions? I do not think
> that is so frequent. Personally, I find the possible usage of
> XPath+XSLT, XML syntax and schema oriented editors, possibly even XQuery
> better examples there.

Go ahead and fiddle with the answer.

> Ivan
> 
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> I prepared a minimal response as per our discussions. We could add more
>> about motivation for XML if this is deemed appropriate (either for Frank
>> or in response to Jan Wielemaker).
>> 
>> Ian

peter

Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 10:36:59 UTC