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

Re: GRDDL was Re: Agenda for teleconf 21st May 2008

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 08:37:35 -0400
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <25208.1211373455@ubuhebe>


Jeremy wrote:
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 
> >     * General Discussion (25 min)
> >           o Issue 97 Add GRDDL to OWL/XML Syntax?
> 
> Please see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008May/0002

I believe we have an impass on this issue.  I don't think any amount of
discussion in the Working Group will resolve it.  As such, I suggest we
do two things:

    1.  Develop a neutral consensus document stating all the relevant
        issues here.  The above e-mail from Harry Halpin might be a
        starting point for the pro-GRDDL+XSLT side of it.  Once everyone
        is satisfied that the document fairly presents the issues, we
        can have a fairly short WG discussion of it (perhaps 30-60
        minutes at the F2F), knowing we'll have formal objections to
        each option, and simply proceed to a vote over formal
        objections.  (Of course, in doing this, it may be that the
        formal objectors will be satisfied and withdraw their objection,
        which would be fine.)

    2.  Make a public request for a person and/or organization to
        provide a supported and robust XSLT transform from OWL-XML to
        RDF/XML, for GRDDL use via the OWL2 namespace document.  When we
        get one or more submissions, the WG should evaluate it/them
        based on factors including ongoing support commitment.

We could do these in any order:

    2-then-1 -- in this case, we don't have to do #1 unless we get a
                solid submission for #2, but the solicitation should be
                clear that the WG has not yet decided whether to use
                GRDDL at all.  (This caveat might discourage some
                possible submitters from participating.)

    1-then-2 -- in this case, we don't have to do #2 unless we decide in
                favor of GRDDL+XSLT, and if we do, we can leave out the
                caveat.

    parallel -- in this case, some work may be wasted, but I think we
                get to the finish line sooner.

My suggestion is to do these in parallel.  I think the people involved
in each path are mostly disjoint.

       -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 12:46:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 May 2008 12:46:18 GMT