- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:49:56 +0200
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: >>>[Bijan Parsia] >>>A current version of the proposal (which is a bit Lispy at the moment): >>> http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/surface.pdf >>> >>> >>[Danny Ayers] >>The choice of a Lisp-like syntax is interesting. Who the target audience >>for this? If it's 'old school' krep folks, then it's bound to do well. >>However if the aim is to get web developers to use it, then I'd >>anticipate resistance, and would have thought swapping the braces for >>angle brackets (a la OWL Presentation Syntax) would be good politics ;-) >> >> > >Could you clarify the distinction you're making here? Obviously the >RDF syntax _is_ an angle-bracket notation. So I'm assuming you're >alluding to the possibility of an XML dialect for OWL-S that would >essentially duplicate the Lispy version, but with fatter, pointier >parentheses. Is that correct? > > Yes. But having looked again at the current syntax it is difficult to see how the same things could be expressed in XML without losing most of the legibility, even if it wasn't as verbose as the full RDF/XML version (though the ability to easily machine-translate and use XPath would be useful). I do think the Lispishness is likely to be offputting to developers familiar with e.g. C# for code, SOAP+XML for data. But alas I don't have a solution... Cheers, Danny. -- ---- Raw http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 04:52:11 UTC