- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:43:29 +0000
- To: Timothy Redmond <tredmond@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Just to be clear, I assume we are talking about recommendation in the usual sense and not in the W3C sense. Even in this case, I think that recommending this particular solution may be too strong. Suggesting it should be OK though. Ian On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:56, Timothy Redmond wrote: > > > 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 Monday, 16 February 2009 13:44:16 UTC