- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:53:49 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 27 Jan 2009, at 15:50, Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >>> GRDDL... well, if we had a 'standard' mapping from OWL/XML to RDF/ >>> XML >>> via a GRDDL transformation then this could be a very good >>> argument here >>> in favour of OWL/XML. And we may have that, right?:-) >> >> Well, I think we do already :) But if you mean an XSLT, then we >> can do the wrapper thing quickly. Rees indicated that that wasn't >> acceptable! >> >> Verra strange. I thought of some specific questions: 1) If there exists a public domain/open source XSLT translator, does that assuage your worry (even if not produced/endorse/published by the working group)? 2) If there were (counterfactually again) an OWL/XML to triples parser for every known RDF or OWL toolkit, would you be happy even if there was no XSLT? 3) If there were an XSLT published by the working group, would you be satisfied even if it were not (easily) downloadable from the namespace page? 4) Do you prefer a frozen, perhaps buggy published XSLT or a "fragile" XSLT which connects to (several) web services and are maintained? (Note that several HTML editors connect to the W3Cs HTML validator to provide validation.) (I'm not saying that these are the only options. Just asking which of these two you prefer.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 16:50:24 UTC