- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:44:01 +0200
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Mike, I strongly support your suggestion about this. I recently sent an email to the protege discussion list about this (see [1]). - Protege's OWL pluging is already able to export the Abstract Syntax, - they are about to make a new tab for it which allows you to copy/paste the abstract syntax from the screen - there is an on-line service in Manchester which translates the XML/RDF syntax to Abstract Syntax (see [2]) (all we need is a convertor in the other direction (should be easy) - all examples in our new textbook (<http://www.semanticwebprimer.org>) are also given in abstract syntax, - see [3] and [4] for a long example (the infamous wildlife example) in both raw RDF/XML and Abstract Syntax, and see the difference Frank. --- [1] <http://protege.stanford.edu/mail_archive/msg08462.html> [2] <http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator> [3] <http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/wildlife.owl> [4] <http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/wildlife.abs> Uschold, Michael F wrote: > I propose that by convention all OWL fragments are given using the > reader-friendly abstract syntax, rather than the parser-friendly XML > syntax. Personaly, I cannot read OWL fragments well enough to be motivated > to ever understand the details, so I tend to skip over them. Even when I > can get motivated, it takes way too much time. > > I would argue very strongly that any public documents published by this WG > do use the more readable syntax. Why not get used to it when we communicate > with each other? It will also make it easier to grab things from > discussions in the archive and plunk them into documents, instead of having > to translate into the abstract syntax suitable for the public. > > Of course, if the discussion is about parsing, or about the syntax of the > language, then it is better to use the parser-friendly syntax, both for > internal discussions and for publised documents. > > What do people think about this suggestion?
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 01:44:20 UTC