Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> > From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 
> > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:37:40 -0400
> > 
> >>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> >>> Subject: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 (was draft responses 
> for 
> >>> LC comment FH3/29)
> >>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:19:19 +0100
> >>> 
> >>> > Based on the email discussion yesterday I have made a draft for a
> >>> > possible (separate) answer to Jan:
> >>> > 
> >>> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR8-2
> >>> > 
> >>> > I hope this summarizes the discussion.
> >> 
> >> Can we just remove the long paragraph which mentions TriX?  I think I
> >> already made the case for why its argument is false, but I'll repeat it
> >> if someone wants.
> > 
> > Please do so.  I don't remember anyone falsifying the claim that triple
> > serialisations of OWL ontologies are not unfriendly to XML tools.
>   		    		       ///
> OOPS

I don't think that's the relevant claim.   I read Jan's comment to say:

    If OWL 2 has a serialization which is XML-Schema-friendly, it should
    use some general solution for making such serializations, not
    something which is specific to OWL 2.  

Now there are two different kinds of schema-friendliness.  There is the
TriX style, where the schema checks that you have triples, but doesn't
care what the triples are.  I don't find this very interesting or
useful; it certainly doesn't meet Bijan's needs.  I suspect it's not
what Jan is talking about.  

So the interesting/useful kind of schema-friendliness is where the XML
schema makes sure the right sort of triples are present, in the right
graph shapes.  That's the kind of schema-friendliness OWL/XML and Rigid
RDF offer.

The paragraph I'd like to eliminate seems to argue against the first
kind of schema-friendliness, which I don't think anyone is actually
advocating.  Worse, it suggests that because this first kind of
friendliness is painful, all kind of generalized schema-friendliness are
painful.

    -- Sandro


> >> I'd also take out "genuine" and the remaining "extremely".
> > 
> > Fine.
> > 
> >> With those changes, I think it's okay.
> >> 
> >>      -- Sandro
> > 
> > peter
> 
> peter

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 15:41:53 UTC