- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk, ivan@w3.org, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject: RE: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:02:56 +0100 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia >>Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:55 AM >>To: Ivan Herman >>Cc: Ian Horrocks; W3C OWL Working Group >>Subject: Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29 >> >>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. > > Agreed! The OWL/XML syntax is /OWL/ specific, it is a syntax that directly > supports specifying an OWL ontology as a set of axioms (and other OWL > specific components). It's clear that producing such a kind of syntax is > really not in the responsibility of an RDF WG. And it should at least be > acceptable that an OWL WG /may/ produce such a "genuine" XML syntax. Just as > other SemWeb languages do, such as SWRL, RIF and Powder. Precise pointers for these could be used in our replies. > Michael peter
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 11:18:42 UTC