- From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:56:36 -0800
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I am not very knowledgeable about XML catalogs but they do look like exactly the right thing. In fact it looks like the suggestion goes beyond my original query. Without the recommendation though, different tools will probably end up using different solutions. While not fatal this is awkward for sharing between different systems. Even Protege 3 and Protege 4 have some of this awkwardness already. So if XML catalogs make sense I favor the recommendation. -Timothy On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Sorry not to delve into to the emails (too much on my stack at the > moment), but I'm unclear why Protege adopting something like XML > Catalogs doesn't solve everything without changes to the current > spec. Indeed, forget "like", just use XML Catalogs. > > P4 could even export a catalog to a zipped directory which maintains > the mappings. > > I'd be happy with us recommending this, even. > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 00:57:15 UTC