- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:26:30 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > Kendall Clark wrote: > Didn't you just make the comparison yourself? I'm confused, here. Yeah, I gave that as an example of a WG doing a Note. I don't think that's the best choice in this case. That wasn't as clear as it could have been. > I believe it's relevant because it shows that the WG Note can be a > successful way to promote an alternate syntax. That's all. And that's why it's not analogous since OWL Functional Syntax is (1) a complete W3C Recc'd language for which (2) there exists a mapping to RDF triples with (3) many, many interoperable systems and implementations. > By the way, existing implementations was most definitely used as a criteria > in our discussions of proposed features in phase 1 of the work. It was not > the only criteria, however. We discussed this a lot, so I suspect it should > be reflected in the WG minutes of the time period. Nor should it be the only criterion here, so I'm glad you agree with that. Otherwise let's drop the HTTP protocol design work that's underway in this WG. And there are many existing implementations of software that converts OWL Functional Syntax into RDF triples, so it's not as if this is new or exploratory or unknown or unstandardized, etc. This is a great chance for the OWL-RDF mapping to have a positive impact, to counter-balance some of the negative impact it has had. Else, what's the point? Cheers, Kendall
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 18:27:30 UTC