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

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

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:53:02 +0100
Message-Id: <059AFB91-4AF0-492E-87FB-752747854E93@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

Why don't we at least have a short discussion to see if we can at  
least agree on this as a way forward and to decide on the ordering?  
We can move this earlier in the agenda with a view to getting it out  
of the way and spending the rest of the time working our way through  
the issues.


On 21 May 2008, at 13:37, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> 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 15:53:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC