- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:33:02 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:03, Axel Polleres wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On 22 Apr 2008, at 02:36, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> I'm such a flip-flopper; maybe I should run for President. >>> >>> While I liked Axel's proposal, I think I also get Michael's >>> point, that >>> (to paraphrase) the Presentation Syntax is not a real rule >>> language. If >>> we want a real (usable) rule lanuage, we should carefully design >>> one, >>> not just add random patches to the PS. >> [snip] >> It's a fantasy, in my experience, to think that something called a >> "Presentation Syntax" is *not* going to get used as a concrete >> syntax. It will just be an underspecified one. (See the old OWL >> abstract syntax for one example.) > > even there, it was useful to write down examples. You miss the point. If you have something that's useful to write down examples with, people *will use it * for more than just writing down examples. >> What's the objection to using XML directly? > > see my last mail. You were arguing for a real non-xml syntax. That's fine, if the group wants to take that up. If it *doesn't*, then I think that XML is better than a Presentation Syntax (though I acknowledge the pain). (The analogy with turtle isn't quite right. Part of the RDF history is the nastiness (real and perceived) of RDF/XML. There are plenty of specs which use only XML (WSDL, XML Schema, etc. etc. etc.).) My point is that a halfway stop is no good. Either have a fully specced Presentation Syntax or use the XML directly. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 09:31:24 UTC