- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:26:25 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
On 14 Dec 2011, at 03:59, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 12/13/11 6:40 PM, Souripriya Das wrote: >> As a precedence, we can look at the OWL spec. OWL too was called a language, "Web Ontology Language". But, it just defined a vocabulary. It did not define any syntax. One can use any RDF syntax (RDF/XML, N-Triple, ...) for OWL. > > Yes, you could look at OWL as a DSL for expressing the semantic fidelity of relations via description logics. Now, if you look at OWL, as powerful and fundamentally useful as it actually is, what's happened to it over the last 12+ years? Nothing but confusion due to syntax level issues, all at the expense of its underlying syntax agnostic model. Do you you have any supporting evidence that this is "due to syntax level issues"? I really don't think so. cheers --e.
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 08:27:05 UTC