W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond.

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:43:29 +0000
Message-Id: <F90CADBA-6481-4A80-B2E8-82B25F212022@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
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
To: Timothy Redmond <tredmond@stanford.edu>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC