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

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:48:57 +0100
Message-Id: <8D0B34D6-0D9E-4CF8-A0F3-E1786A2B8265@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 15 Sep 2008, at 14:41, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Jim Hendler wrote:
> [snip]
>> Let me try to tease out the various options. Corrections welcome.
>> 1) (Alan's) We put a *triple* (i.e., change the graph) in.  
>> Advantages:
>> "works"[1] for all RDF serializations. Disadvantages: Breaks  
>> syntactic
>> layering; contaminates the graph and the structural model;  
>> *requires* a
>> bespoke solution (thus precludes using standards like XInclude).
> Just for my understanding: why would this solution preclude using
> XInclude? If there is an extra triple defined in some vocabulary,
> wouldn't that be orthogonal to the usage of XInclude?

The difference is whether the triple *duplicates* the XInclude (i.e.,  
an XInclude statement without a corresponding triple would be non- 
conforming) or is an *additional* mechanism.

Obviously, anyone can pop xinclude in, but a conforming OWL RDF/XML  
parser wouldn't have to recognize it (by our specs).

I guess. Getting ugly quickly :(

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 13:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC