Re: An XML ``presentation'' syntax for OWL

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> The problem with the RDF compatible one is that it is not XML Schema
> compatible.  I'm envisioning a (possible) situation where ontologies are
> presented in the XML Schema syntax and facts are written in RDF syntax
(or,
> maybe, in the other XML Schema syntax, but I guess that this would be too
> radical).
>

Or alternatively look at RELAXNG
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/, for which RDFCore has
developed a nice schema for general RDF. Indeed the RELAXNG non-XML syntax
is very easy to read and you will notice a certain resemblence to the XQuery
formal semantics type syntax. see:
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/compact/index.html
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/compact/syntax.html

I was fooling around with RELAXNG syntaxes for RDF last year:
http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDFSurfaceSyntax.html
http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDF1.rng

and James Clark has written one -- in the non-XML "compact" syntax, for the
new RDF syntax:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0248.html

You see that this compact syntax is very easy to work with.

Jonathan