Subject: [LC response] To Danny Ayers
Thank you for your comment
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
Although the shorthand "a" is in the Turtle document, http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle, the document does not provide an expansion for it. This makes use of the shorthand problematic in OWL 2 documents, even in non-normative documents like the OWL 2 Primer.
Many examples in OWL 2, for example in the Primer, already have two RDF syntaxes - RDF/XML and Turtle. The OWL WG feels that adding a third RDF syntax would not provide sufficient benefit to justify both the work involved in adding the extra syntax and the extra load on readers in reading or even just determining not to read the extra syntax.
Therefore the OWL WG will not be making any change to its documents in response to this comment.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:email@example.com> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
I suggest it would be appropriate to use the shorthand "a" for "rdf:type" in the examples, it being a more compact and natural form, in the spirit of Turtle. Additionally, it would be nice to see NTriples syntax too as this clearly exposes the RDF triple structure along with the use of IRIs. Cheers, Danny. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples -- http://danny.ayers.name