- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:46 +0100
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Rinke Hoekstra" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Whatever we choose, we might do a check against a resource like http://filext.com/ to check that there isn't an unfortunate association to some file type that might commonly associate the OWL file to a common existing application. -Alan On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > >> On 28 okt 2008, at 09:06, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>> What about '.owlx'? >>> >>> maybe as a matter of consistency we can also consider using 'owlf' and >>> 'owlm' for the other two. >>> >>> Ivan >> >> Although certainly prettier, > > By leaps and bounds. > >> I think it would create problems on FAT-based file systems that (still) >> use the 8.3 naming scheme as these may truncate a long extension to three >> characters. > > But they would truncate to .owl, right? That seems harmless to me. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 09:03:21 UTC