Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

First of all, don't shoot at the messenger...:-) But I try to anticipate
the arguments.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> 

Well, we do have a canonical RDF mapping of OWL. Ie, instead of mapping
the result of the RDF mapping to RDF/XML, one could do this with
another, XML-tool friendly XML encoding. I am not sure I understand the
problem...

> 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?
> 

It of course all relies on having an RDF triples follow our mapping
documents.

Ivan


>> 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

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf