From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 02/12/04
From: Sandro Hawke <[email protected]> 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