[SCL] XML syntax for CL

[Dan Connolly]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 19:01, pat hayes wrote:
> Guys, we have too many cooks stirring  pots.
> 
> At a telecon a few weeks ago, Tamel agreed to make a draft XML syntax 
> for CL proposal.  I thought it was understood that he would take 
> Chris M's DTD as a starting point, and maybe he did, or maybe that 
> idea got lost, Im not sure.
> 
> In the meantime, Tamel has produced a document
> 
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/scl/2003-April/000125.html
> 
> and nobody is paying it any attention.

I just took a look and I'm intrigued to see "I was thinking about
- possibly - writing a draft for proof syntax in XML"

I'm collecting my thoughts on that in a world-writable space,
if you're interested:
  http://esw.w3.org/topic/ProofChecking

>  Well, someone is:
> 
> http://www.altheim.com/specs/xcl/1.0/
> 
> Many thanks, Murray.

Yes, that is nifty... some comments I made the other day...

XML Common Logic (XCL) Markup Language 1.0
posted by DanC at 2003-05-07 15:40 (+)
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/05/07/2003-05-07.html#1052322007.667432

        DanC: hmm... "11. Writing XCL documents shall not require
        invention of new XML markup."
        DanC: that answers a question I asked in esw:SelfDescribingWeb
        DanC: I'm not sure I grok termRef. Otherwise, it looks pretty
        straightforward. (I used "XFormula" as a name for a pretty
        similar design, though I didn't flesh it out)


the question I asked was...

  In RDF/XML, terms appear as element and attribute names. (some
  regard this as abuse of XML; they will please explain
  the [PPR]AntiPattern that leads them to this conclusion). 
  -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/SelfDescribingWeb

I'm still not sure I'm convinced that it's good
to "not require invention of new XML markup" but
I appreciate seeing it stated so crisply, with
some justification; to wit: a DTD, etc.



> Clearly there is more than one way to use XML to give a syntax. 
> Before we get down to details of bugs and fixes, can we discuss the 
> overall best way to do it? I have to say, I don't much like either of 
> the ones we have at the present  but lets at least all talk to one 
> another about what we are all doing. For a start, could each of you, 
> Chris M . and Tamel, and Murray if you have time, look at what the 
> others have done and maybe mutually critique, or at least comment? 
> Bearing in mind that we have to actually get to a consensus 
> eventually, of course.
> 
> Many thanks to everyone for all the work, but we need to coordinate. 
> Unfortunately (?) this is one area where I do not feel competent to 
> adjudicate between rival criteria for adequacy.
> 
> Like most other XML syntaxes I have been obliged to deal with, these 
> proposals seem to me to be so ugly, long-winded, 
> information-deficient, unreadable and virtually impossible to use 
> that it is hard to believe that anyone would seriously suggest using 
> them for any purpose.  Maybe I'm just missing the point of XML, but I 
> wish someone would tell me what the point is supposed to be. The 
> example used by Tamel uses 61 characters in a reasonable logical 
> notation, which becomes approximately 400 characters in the bare XML 
> rendering, and would expand to something closer to 800 characters 
> when embedded in a fully decorated XML document with all its 
> surrounding scaffolding, canonical identifiers and so on. The 
> information density has decreased by about 1.3 orders of magnitude 
> and the document has become unreadable and harder to parse. Can 
> anyone tell me what has been gained by this transformation?
> 
> But no doubt I should avoid such complaining, as I have found that it 
> is not productive when talking to XML enthusiasts.
> 
> Perhaps more to the point, however, is the need for us to take 
> seriously the potential need to interact with the RDF style of using 
> XML. Consider an OWL ontology encoded as an OWL-RDF graph written in 
> RDF/XML.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ , see particularly 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
> The ontology itself has a natural translation into CL (similar to the 
> one in http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/OWL2LBASE.html , though it 
> could be done slightly differently). If we were to do that 
> translation, then write the CL in XML, what, if any, relationship 
> might there be between that piece of XML and the OWL/RDF/XML (see 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/) ?
> 
> Can anyone make a telecon next Tuesday?

I continue to follow this discussion with interest, but at
a considerable distance. I'm not likely to be available
for a telcon. But I hope to take a look at the outcome.

> Pat
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/