W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Query for import task force

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:39:13 +0100
Message-Id: <ECE56912-6BF6-48B8-92A3-81F6CC29FFD3@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 7 Apr 2008, at 17:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> There is an implementation in java: http://xml.apache.org/commons/ 
> components/resolver/
> What I don't know is whether there being a java implementation  
> would satisfy all reasoner developers - presumably there are non- 
> java reasoners.
[snip]
>> I also thought it looks heavier than might be desirable, from the  
>> point of view getting developer adoption. Perhaps a limited subset  
>> of it, or a minimal set of constructs with developers free to  
>> implement more?

I guess my first question then is that if there is an existing  
standard (which might be subsetted or not) then perhaps there's  
nothing, at this time, for the working group to do. I'd suggest that  
if this standard meets various user needs that those uses lobby their  
vendors to implement it.

Indeed, presumably it wouldn't be hard to map the existing Jena,  
Kaon2, Protege mapping files into and out of XML Catalog. With such a  
tool, the use case of having a portable file format is handled but,  
assuming comparable functionality, there's no need to update the  
existing tools.

I'd be curious to know, too, what exactly is heavyweight. I've not  
read the spec in detail, nor have I implemented it, but from what I  
see it provides for Public ID, URI to URI, and Local cache  
mappings...isn't this roughly what's wanted?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 16:37:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 April 2008 16:38:00 GMT