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

Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:40:31 -0800
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0901271840x169eaa68t45e6ac82c520d979@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

>>> 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.
>> Maybe you missed where I said my reason to dislike the web service
>> (XSLT+CGI) was that it was complicated and fragile.
> I don't think it is. Certainly not *more* complicated and fragile.

The reason that this option was rejected was that it required users to
ship their files to the site where the cgi was running. This was no
good for users inside companies where this would represent an
unacceptable exposure of potentially proprietary information.


Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 02:41:12 UTC

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