- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I suppose that it is benign to change to something like: 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 schema specified syntax for the exchange of ontology documents *should* use the XML schema provided in the OWL 2 recommendation. Making the XML syntax a working group note would not provide this sort of guidance. This is even more explicit, and points out that it is ontology documents that are being exchanged. peter From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:11:16 -0400 > 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 21:16:12 UTC