- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:01:43 -0400
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As this comment questions the XML format, I suggest we include the paragraph from JR8-2, included below, which provide compelling precedent for having the format. "Note that having specialized formats for 'sub'-languages on the Semantic Web is not specific to OWL. A typical example might be 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 these languages clearly map on 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." -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:02:18 UTC