>RDF has the advantage that it's possible to load sets of triples from
>many sources and there's an obvious merge simply by merging the
>resultant graphs.  That's somewhat harder with a straight XML encoding,
>though by no means impossible - there is an XML encoding of OWL, for

I agree with above arguments, but as an ordinary software designer
1. I like to see a simple (but sufficient) syntax for any language. Imaging
Java has more than one syntax, I doubt it'll be so popular.
2. My working area is in network management, I know how hard it is for
industry to accept a management protocol with a "rich" syntax, mostly due to
implementation and interoperability reasons.
3. If there are some legacy RDF/S based systems, some sort of gateway can
always be easily implemented to convert RDF and any other expressive syntax
into OWL

Anyway, I really cannot see the reason why <rdf:..> and <rdfs:...> in a OWL
file are not replaced by <owl:...>. Actually, by doing so, an OWL file can
be shorter by simply setting default namespace at OWL :-) not a big issue


Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 11:18:49 UTC