RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL

>
>Here are my current thoughts on why OWL should not use the 
>same syntax as
>RDF, no matter what we do with the semantics.
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research
>
>
>
>		Why Triples are Terrible for Syntax
>
>
>Summary:  RDF containers, RDF reification, and DAML+OIL syntax all show
>	  that triples are terrible for syntax.
>

I must say, this was the clearest exposition I have yet seen on the
difficulties posed by RDF triples syntax and reification, with the
examples being particularly well written and selected, and I for one am
therefore persuaded that attaining the goals we wish for OWL will
require either changes to RDF syntax or selecting the option outlined in
Dieter and Peter's paper implying syntactical divergence of OWL from
RDF.


-- Ziv