- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:40:37 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 11 Mar 2009, at 10:15, Ivan Herman wrote: [snip] > I tried to do that, and the incriminated paragraph now reads: > > [[[ > There is, however, a further issue to consider. Let us suppose that a > regular XML encoding, closely reflecting RDF triples, was used > (something like TriX[1], for example). That would mean that OWL > construct would have to be encoded in, essentially, an XML > transliteration of N-triples. Though this would be well defined, it > would still be complicated to manage the resulting XML content > through, > say, XPath, and almost impossible to define an XML schema that > could be > used by a schema aware editor. This is simply due to the fact that the > triple representation of OWL constructs are, by their very nature, > fairly complex (think of the representation of class intersections > using > RDF lists). One could of course imagine a slightly more complex XML > encoding of RDF, but it is unclear at the moment what that would > be. In > other words, relying on a generic XML format for RDF may not satisfiy > the requirements end users have for such a serialization of OWL due to > its inherent complexity. > ]]] [snip] Works for me. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 10:36:59 UTC