- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:11:16 -0400
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Meant to reply all. -Alan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:00:29 -0400 Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1 To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Because the issue of the XML syntax, has a contentious one, and because the addition says more clearly what the case is. Is there something wrong with saying so? -Alan On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:36 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com > wrote: > 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 21:11:56 UTC