- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
OWL tools are in some sense free to use whatever XML they want internally, and the WG doesn't really have anything to say about this, but I don't see why the reply should have the "for exchange of" qualification. peter From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:25:17 -0400 > Hi Peter, > > A minor point. > > In: > The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2 > XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2 > *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation. > > s/that use an XML syntax/that use an XML syntax for exchange of/ > Presumably this should be fixed in the underlying document unless > obvious from the immediate context. > > -Alan > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >> [Draft Response for LC Comment 63:] JO1 >> >> Dear Jacco, >> >> Thank you for your message >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0013.html> >> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >> >> The Working Group acknowledges that the recent last call document set >> confused some readers, particularly with respect to the overall OWL 2 >> environment and the various syntaxes for OWL 2. At its last >> face-to-face meeting the Working Group has, therefore, added a new >> document to the OWL 2 suite, entitled "Document Overview". The document >> has not yet been published, but an editor's draft is publicly available >> at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview >> >> The Document Overview document describes the status of the various >> syntaxes for OWL 2 and clearly states that RDF/XML is the primary syntax >> for the exchange of OWL 2 ontologies. This status is reiterated in the >> Conformance document. The Document Overview document states that the >> XML syntax need not be supported by OWL 2 tools. >> >> There are other parts of the OWL 2 recommendation that are optional as >> well. There can be OWL 2 tools that only implement OWL 2 RL, for >> example. >> >> The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2 >> XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2 >> *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation. >> Making the XML syntax a working group note would not provide this sort >> of guidance. >> >> The Working Group plans on making the examples in the OWL 2 Structural >> Specification and Functional Syntax document available in other >> syntaxes, even though that document only defines one syntax. The >> Working group does not intend to make changes to the XML Serialization >> document in response to your message. >> >> We hope that the new document and other upcoming changes address your >> concerns. >> >> 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. >> >> Regards, >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> >> >
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 20:36:13 UTC