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.

I can live with it.   Ship it!

     - s

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 13:08:12 UTC