• To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Subject: Re: Alternate (non-RDF) XML syntax for OWL
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:41:11 +0000
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <01C28991.C5208060@w...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Jonathan Borden wrote:
  Indeed there might be any number of alternate XML syntaxes for RDF 
any of which are 'better' than RDF/XML e.g. Tim's
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0044.html

Like I said elsewhere, there's a few knocking about.

Getting the W3 to adopt one would make the difference. RDF Core has 
been very careful to stay within its charter on the matter of XML 
syntax - the scope for real improvement has generally been on the 
semantic side of the house.

On the other hand RDF Core saw fit to invent an entirely new syntax 
to describe test cases.

Bill de hÓra

--
Propylon
www.propylon.com

• References:
  • Alternate (non-RDF) XML syntax for OWL
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Proposed RPV syntax for RDF
• Next by Date: Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Previous by thread: Alternate (non-RDF) XML syntax for OWL
• Next by thread: Proposed RPV syntax for RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread