- From: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:18:15 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> >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
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 13:20:02 UTC