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

Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:31:12 +0000
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A4045D3A-24CA-4FC6-B537-9854C35C73E6@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 28 Jan 2009, at 02:40, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>>>> 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

I don't see that it 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.

Um...and running an unvetted program is ok?

> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.04.30/Minutes#Issue_97

That does not represent a decision by the working group, AFICT. The  
conversations I had with Ivan and Sandro took place well after this  

Even so, I don't see how it's *fragile*. Insecure, maybe.

(Of course, this generally supports my point: It's not just a  
transformation, but a transformation meeting *quite* a few detailed  
implementation demands. Which is inappropriate for the WG.)

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 07:31:48 UTC

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