From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 02/12/04
[Following up on my own message.] From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Subject: Re: reifying variables Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:29:30 -0500 (EST) > 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 I was just reading the WWW Architecture document, and realized that this restriction to RDF/XML syntax for the Semantic Web goes against the third ``architectural basis of the Web'', namely that ``[r]epresentations are built from a non-exclusive set of data formats, used separately or in combination [...]''. Strange. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/12/04 EST