- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:04:14 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
As always I share both Jim's and Mike's concerns - despite them disagreeing. It really doesn't help that the abstract syntax to triples mapping is many-to-many ... Jeremy Jim Hendler wrote: > > At 20:09 -0800 3/30/04, 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 object to this strongly -- that syntax is neither reader friendly nor > actually a part of the recommendation. Much more importantly, we should > be creating fragments that people can cut and paste into their documents > (and edit) -- forcing them to figure out the mapping from the so-called > human readable syntax into actually RDF or OWL (XML or N3) makes no sense. > >> >> 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. > > > I advocate use of "turtle" - which should be the first document this WG > approves as a working note (if Dave is willing) > >> >> 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 is parser friendly? > >> What do people think about this suggestion? >> >> If the overwhelming majority of this WG actually PREFER to read the >> parser-friendly syntax, then perhaps I'd best get used to it, but it >> there are many like me, it makes sense to use a more reader-friendly >> syntax. >> > > well, we could get into whether this is a voting issue for a WG (be > careful when you use words like "majority" in a W3C group) but my vote > is for N3 (Turtle) which is a nice compromise - or else to stick w/the > RDF/XML for cut and paste reasons > -JH > p.s. Mike - have you noticed our world view doesn't always seem to align > :->
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 02:07:44 UTC