RE: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments

• From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
• Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:52:19 -0700
• To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
• Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF048950D3@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>

As I understand it, RDF Schema is a subset of OWL, so why would the abstract syntax would be less appropriate?

Mike



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:06 PM
To:	Frank van Harmelen
Cc:	Uschold, Michael F; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject:	Re: [ALL]  Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments


A further concern I have is that many Semantic Web users use mainly RDF 
with maybe just a tiny bit of OWL ... To communicate with them OWL Abstract 
Syntax is not appropriate.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:58:37 UTC