- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:22:15 -0500
- To: danny666@virgilio.it
- Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
On Mar 31, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > *Not* another new serialization of RDF, but apologies, it is a little > off-topic. > I couldn't help being struck by the verbosity and syntax complexity of > David's example. Ok, I'm sure this has been raised before, and in this > spec definition phase with RDF/XML as the interchange language I > suppose that's to some extent understandable. But might it still not > make sense to express things like this in a more concise language that > was originally designed for specifying processes, i.e. a programming > language. e.g. [snip] Danny, our current solution for this problem is to provide a completely distinct surface syntax that is more concise and more readable and encodes into the syntactic structure much of the stuff we must make explicit in OWL. 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 I'm interesting to know if you think mixing RDF and some other syntax a la your proposal is better than having a complete drop in replacement. I'm inclined to the latter, myself. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:22:23 UTC