- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:29:34 +0100
- To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeff: [1] > opinion. All I ask is that we leave the option to use a non-RDF triples > syntax open. Guus and Jim: [2] > We also believe that we must rule that discussion of syntaxes which > are not in XML and RDF are out of scope, unless they are being > recommended as "presentation syntax" Jeremy: [3] > We develop an XSLT transform from the light [XML] sytax into the full set of > heavy triples and [...]. I remain confident that it is very possible to both have our cake and eat it. We could even mandate the inclusion of the appropriate processing instruction at the top of an OWL Lite document that informs a non-OWL Lite aware processor to apply the XSLT transform. That way an XSLT and RDF/XML aware processor could read an OWL Lite document without knowing it. I guess I feel that a frame oriented XML syntax that isn't constrained by RDF/XML's idiosnycronicies is worth the investment. I have a stronger desire for maintaining a view of an ontology as a set of RDF triples. I don't think these conflict; unless we have a scheduling/resourcing problem. Jeremy [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0344.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0313.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0260.html
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 13:30:19 UTC