- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:00:07 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 10 Mar 2009, at 23:12, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> I am happy to see I generated some storm here, so I am not 100% sure >> what changes should happen on the response to Jan... There seem to >> be no >> consensus... >> >> I will call it a day. Maybe by the time I am back tomorrow everything >> will be solved...:-) > > I suggest we do one of these: > > - ask Jan whether he was thinking of something like TriX or > something > like Rigid-RDF. Let's not invite trouble. > - make a response which works in either case, eg by simply > pointing > out that TriX-like solutions aren't very useful (in case that's > what he was thinking about) and saying nothing about other > possible approaches to generalized XML. Works for me. > - drop the argument about TriX, since I don't think Jan really > cares about it, and even if he does, it doesn't really matter. That's ok with me. I only pointed out TriX to show that merely making RDF/XML XML toolchain friendly does not make the encoding of OWL into that RDF/ XML XML toolchain friendly. That is, you need to do *something* to make the OWL "visible" to the XML level. As such, whether you use a bespoke XML syntax (as we do) or you have a generalized solution (as you believe is possible), it's still the responsibility of *this group* to define that OWL structure (as we do) and make it salient to the XML layer. That is, regardless of whether a future RDF group "went TriX" or "went rigid", the OWL working group would have work to do here. Thus we are doing things "in the right place". Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 08:56:35 UTC