- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:21:41 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
>>>> 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. > > Yes. Look at DBpedia, Linked Open Data Cloud, SPARQL, and the rise of Linked Data in general. These are all examples of Turtle exploitation. I don't see how this supports your argument about OWL alleged 'failure' "due to syntax level issues". --e.
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 13:22:14 UTC