- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:49:40 +0100
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Uschold, Michael F wrote: > "there is no reason for the whole world to have read the OWL > S&AS document just so they can understand our examples " > > One way to address this might be to have a short/sweet tutoiral on the AS. > > One way to deal with the syntax shock Tim mentions (and that I continue to experience every time I see some), is to assume that in general, few folk in the world will be EXPECTED to read raw OWL (or RDF) syntax. Exceptions include those who need to be concerned about the syntax and parsing of the language. I advocate this position, something more readable is needed. If we agreed that far, we could begin discussion of what particular variant(s) are preferred. > > Mike > I don't think so - I tend to agree with Frank that there isn't a single answer. It may be helpful to have a tutorial on the abtsract syntax, but that won't make the universal answer. One of the aspects of the syntax shock is that it is so XML unfriendly, making a more friendly XML syntax for RDF I suspect would make it even less palatable to naive users. There is not one 'syntax shock' but many: RDF/XML is a compromise between pressures in different directions. OWL AS is more palatable to some communities, and less palatable to others. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 08:52:13 UTC