Re: Is a non-RDF triples syntax out of charter?

Jeff Heflin wrote:
> ... Furthermore, there is certainly nothing in the charter that
> says the ontology language's syntax must be formed from RDF triples.

What is wrong with? (assume daml:collection, and forget about the RDF
expansion into daml:List. etc.)

<Class rdf:ID="foo">
                <Thing rdf:resource="#A"/>
                <Thing rdf:resource="#B"/>
                <Thing rdf:resource="#C"/>

This really isn't that bad XML.

An advantage of RDF's XML syntax is that it gives us nested class
definitions for free e.g.

<Class rdf:ID="bar">
                                    <onProperty rdf:resource="#a">
                                    <toClass rdf:resource="#foo">

My questions are:

What do I get by using another XML syntax? (what do I _actually get_)
What does it cost me?

I need concrete answers to these questions.

In the absense of an  actual concrete syntax I can't judge if the benefits
would be worth the cost, regardless of what the charter allows.


Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 18:25:07 UTC