Re: reifying variables

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 02/12/04

  • Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: reifying variables" 
    From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: reifying variables 
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:30 -0500

> 
> > > So SWRL makes no claim to get it right, which is okay, but of course
> > > this means it's not really an "RDF Concrete Syntax", it's an "RDF-Like
> > > Concrete Syntax."   Not so good.
> > 
> > Well, this is probably the best that can be done.
> 
> In what way is it better to use an "RDF-Like" syntax?  That seems to
> me like the worst of both world -- all the syntactic beauty and
> convenience elegance of RDF/XML, plus all the standard-ness of the
> <blink> tag.
> 
>   -- sandro

Technically I don't see any reason to use an RDF syntax whatsoever.
However, using RDF syntax has appeared to be the price to enter the
Semantic Web arena.

I would be much, much happier if the Semantic Web had multiple syntaxes.  I
have argued this in the past, to no avail, and have even written papers
proposing multiple-syntax versions of the Semantic Web.  I don't see any
technical reasons to not go to a multiple-syntax version of the Semantic
Web.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/12/04 EST