- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: ivan@w3.org, 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 12:46:42 +0100 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] > >>>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. > > * SWRL XML Concrete Syntax: > <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/#5> > > * RIF/BLD XML Schema: > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-bld-20080730/#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF > -BLD> > > * POWDER Web Description Resources XML Schema (WDR): > <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder/wdr.xsd> > > Note: The POWDER Formal Semantics document at > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/> > > often uses both POWDER/XML *and* RDF/XML alongside in its examples. > > Michael Excellent, thanks. Unfortunately, none of these are further down the W3C REC road than we. peter
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 12:06:49 UTC