- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:40:23 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- CC: www-archive@w3.org, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Hmmmm, trying to think constructively. A loose stab at the requirements for these aspects of the design 1) The POWDER file should be fairly easy to write, by hand if necessary, and not require a specialised tool. 2) The POWDER file should have a formal semantics. 3) The POWDER file should have an operational semantics. 4) It should not require too much specialist skill to implement the POWDER operational semantics. 5) The divergence between the formal semantics and the operational semantics should be small. 6) It should be possible to access (most of) the formal semantics of the POWDER file using off-the-shelf semantic web tools. 7) Within the off-the-shelf semantic web tools paradigm, POWDER has lots and lots of extensibility (like RDF). 8) However, not all that extensibility needs to be apparent in the operational semantics that specific POWDER tools might be using. ==== So, as an example, while in RDF and OWL we can declare a subClass of wdr:ResourceSet, a POWDER specific tool might just use an XML parser, with no Semantic Web capabilities, and hence ignore such a subClass while treating wdr:ResourceSet in a special way. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:40:56 UTC