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

Hi Alan,

this makes sense indeed. However, there has been some emails between Jan
and either me or the whole working group, ie, he seems to want to go
down technical discussions. The slightly longer and technically more
detailed answer might make such interaction shorter... that is why the
current answer might be better this time.

Thoughts?

ivan

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Feel free to ignore this, but:  If it were me I'd seriously trim it to:
> 
> You are correct that a completely XML "friendly" encoding of RDF could
> indeed be used to encode OWL 2 ontologies and could, therefore, be
> used as part of a more complete XML workflow. However relying on a
> generic XML format for RDF does not satisfy the requirements end users
> have for such a serialization of OWL 2 because of the complexity of
> queries needed to extract many meaningful OWL structures. Having a
> specialized XML format designed for OWL 2 means that typical queries
> will be easily expressed.
> 
> Note that having specialized formats for 'sub'-languages on the
> Semantic Web is not specific to OWL. An example is the XML encoding of
> Resource Descriptions in POWDER[2], which provides an XML syntax for
> end users but also defines a formal transformation of that XML
> encoding into OWL. As long as formats such as these clearly map to a
> common and required exchange format (which is the case for OWL 2),
> they can be valuable in serving various specialized communities
> without damaging interoperability.
> 
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf