- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:21:34 +0200
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: >>[Danny Ayers] >>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, .... >> >> > >Could you point out some specific points where this would happen? My >problem is that I'm not sure what aids or hampers legibility for XML >users. > > Probably worst hit would be the 'operators' like the dataflow expressions, "=>" could turn ugly, and typing "-" is pretty lite compared with things like rdf:datatype="http://blah/blah#int". > > >>I do think the Lispishness is likely to be offputting to >>developers familiar with e.g. C# for code, SOAP+XML for data. >> >> > >Then we should adopt C# syntax for OWL-S. It's easy to snicker at >people who are easily fooled by such superficial features of a >language, but in the real world the snickerers are not the ones >laughing all the way to the bank. > > > mmm, OWL-S C# ish probably would turn a few heads, I guess it would also be Javaish. Cheers, Danny. btw and drifting off topic, Bill de Hora did a nice post a couple of days ago - not talking about syntax, but a good read all the same: "[a long entry, this, on why a using better languages makes all kinds of technical and economic sense. Much talk herein of Lisp, Java, software economics, risk, processes, outsourcing, drawing as programming, luddites, and perpetual motion too. It ends happily.]" http://www.dehora.net/journal/archives/000423.html#more -- ---- Raw http://dannyayers.com
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 16:21:18 UTC