W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2009

RE: Schism in the Semantic Web community.

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:28:07 +0000
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3580F3253AC@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 January 2009 01:12
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Semantic Web
> Subject: Re: Schism in the Semantic Web community.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
> wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > You quote:
> >>
> >> 2.1 Document Conformance
> >> Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some
> >> or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging
> documents.
> >> However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as
> >> input(s) must accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML
> >> serialization [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs], and conformant OWL 2
> >> tools that publish ontology documents must, if possible, be able to
> >> publish them in the RDF/XML serialization if asked to do so (e.g.,
> via
> >> HTTP content negotiation). OWL 2 tools may also accept and/or publish
> >> ontology documents using other serializations, for example the XML
> >> Serialization [OWL 2 XML Syntax].
> >
> > Which says qualifies the "must" in "MUST, if possible, be able to ..."
> >
> > When is it not possible?  (follow-up Q if relevant: who decides?)
> 
> The "possible" refers to the cases where RDF/XML can't serialize RDF,
> for instance in the cases that predicates whose URIs localnames begin
> with a number. In those cases one can't construct a qname for the URI
> and since predicates are always written as tags in RDF/XML this just
> can't be serialized in RDF/XML.
> 
> So "possible" means possible in the absolute sense.
> 
> There was some discussion about whether we should restrict the names
> in OWL ontologies so that such cases were ruled out but the general
> consensus was that this was a problem with RDF/XML, not with RDF
> proper and we shouldn't work around it in the OWL spec.
> 
> -Alan
> 

Alan - thanks (I've writing too much Turtle recently :-)

	Andy


Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 13:29:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC