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

Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:53:49 +0000
Message-Id: <98C75C0B-6F46-404D-BEF2-F53222485680@cs.man.ac.uk>
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.)

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 16:50:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC