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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:40:37 +0000

> 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.

Me too.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 12:04:39 UTC