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: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:56:15 +0000
Message-Id: <F1608D4A-69BF-408E-850C-887729FF6C20@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 29 Jan 2009, at 09:21, Ivan Herman wrote:
> From a GRDDL perspective, _if_ the namespace document (say, an XML  
> file,
> including a possibility for XHTML) includes the necessary GRDDL
> mechanism to yield an XSLT transform, then, well, it has it and  
> will use it.
> 'GRDDL mechanism' means that the XML file contains the GRDDL  
> attributes to
> - generate an RDF on its own right (just as for any GRDD-able XML)
> - the generated RDF contains triplets to get to the XSLT transform for
> the original data that started the process via a namespace URI

/me wonders whatever happened to conneg :) Or RDDDL

> So yes, indeed, I see two different issues here that are  
> interrelated...
> 1. Putting the OWL/XML and GRDDL issue aside, the question is _what_
> should be at the http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl URI. What format (XHTML
> or RDF) and, if RDF, what should that contain.

I prefer text/html.

> 2. Because the _same_ URI is used both for the OWL/XML namespace in  
> the
> XML sense and for the URI prefix for the OWL case, we may hit some
> problems with the clashes indeed

> We could also, ehem, ehem:-) reverse our earlier decision on the  
> namespace and separate it into another URI. That would mean a clean
> separation for GRDDL processing.

As you can well imagine, that is a huge non-starter for me :) Indeed,  
if this is a consequence of adding GRDDL support, then it strengthens  
by quite a bit my opposition to GRDDL!

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 09:52:51 UTC

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