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

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:04:42 -0500
• To: ziv@unicorn.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20020214140442C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: why RDF syntax is not suitable for OWL
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:18:15 +0200

> >
> >		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

Thanks.

Later last night I realized that I missed a golden opportunity.  I
therefore retitle my document as

		The Trouble with Triples

peter

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 14:05:33 UTC