From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 02/17/04
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. Frank. ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/17/04 EST