Re: Multiple Semantic Web Languages (was: Re: reifying variables)

From: Frank van Harmelen (
Date: 02/17/04

  • Next message: Ian Horrocks: "SWRL reduces waste"
    Peter wrote:
    > > I argued long and loud in the W3C WebOnt working group about problems that
    > > using the RDF syntax caused.  This argument didn't go anywhere, so I gave
    > > in and created a partial solution for OWL.
    Sandro asked:
    > Do you remember why the WG disagreed with you?
    Peter answered:
    > Because all Semantic Web languages have to be same-syntax extensions of RDF.
    Yes, I must support this. The *only* argument for many WebOnt members to 
    accept/put up with the RDF syntax for OWL was political pressure (perceived 
    or real) from W3C.
    Ian Horrocks wrote:
    > Talking about cost (which you do below), probably the biggest cost in
    > building OWL tools is dealing with the incredibly cumbersome RDF
    > syntax
    I must also support this. This is not just a grudge-carrying claim from Ian, 
    but substantiated by reports from almost all the contributors to the "OWL 
    implementation experience" workshop Ian and I organised just before ISWC'03 
    in Florida. I asked all the contributors (all implementors of OWL tools) what 
    they loved most about OWL and what they hated most about OWL. The RDF/XML 
    syntax was by far the most frequent answer to the 2nd question. Subsequent 
    discussion revealed estimates of up to 80% of development time for various 
    OWL tools being devoted to the RDF/XML syntax. The underlying reason is the 
    lack of a natural mapping from OWL to tripples.
    W3C always says they value the opinion of "real" people who build "real" 
    tools. This is it.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/17/04 EST