I see the point somewhat, but it seems to miss the basic principles of Composer and TBS, which is that one ought to be able to work with semantic web technologies without ever seeing source code. The purpose of serializations, as I see it, is tool interoperability, not human readability (and XML/RDF/OWL is NOT human readable).
N3 is not going away. It is unfortunate that the OWL 2 primer does not recognize that N3 is becoming a de facto standard for representing RDF. It has many advantages, including a compacter representation, human readability, uses the same language as the query language (SPARQL), and was designed as a syntax for representing triples. XML was designed for hierarchical tags and using this to represent triples turned out to be an unfortunate hack that needs to be kept for legacy reasons. Emphasis on using the same syntax to represent text serializations of RDF and queries (SPARQL). This isn't to say that Composer shouldn't support the other serializations for pedagogical and other reasons, but that one already has the tools necessary to do the job. The rest is, as Michel says, a matter of consistency with the upcoming standard. We'll have more to say at a later point in time. -- Scott On Nov 18, 7:17 am, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]> wrote: > The generic underlying principle at least from my side is consistency. > It avoids many questions. > > When I read owl2 primer I thought: he, what happened to RDF/XML Abbrev. > ? (etc.). > > When people start using tbc after having read the primer they come up > with questions like: he, I see all kinds of syntax forms not in the > primer but those IN the primer are not all supported! > > Well, you get my point... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=.
