[SCL] Approach to a concrete syntax

[John F. Sowa]

Pat et al.,

I wholly endorse the following statement by Pat, and I
would object most strenuously if the weird features
of RDF(S) were considered a primary driver of SCL:

PH> RDF(S) is marginal to the SCL project.

For political reasons, we need an XML-based syntax for SCL
that accommodates RDF triples, but I vehemently oppose
the notion that it should adopt the ludicrous syntactic
directions that OWL has followed.

I believe that the XML version of full SCL should be
little more than the abstract SCL with angle brackets
as syntactic sugar (or perhaps syntactic castor oil).

The fact that OWL has an XML representation does *not*
mean that the XML version of full SCL must or should
include OWL as a proper subset.  They can both be
SCL-conformant languages without one being a subset
of the other (although the OWL subset must be mappable
to the full SCL, but mappable does not mean identical).

PH> This seems to be an issue which we need a higher bandwidth
 > to discuss adequately. Can you make a telecon next Tuesday at
 > the usual time? (Or indeed any othe time, if you prefer: you
 > choose.)

Unfortunately, this Tuesday (May 27 is bad for me).  I can
make it on Wed or Fri of this week or on Tues, June 1.

John