- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:16:55 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
This is mostly a reminder to myself, but also for Sandro and any interested parties. http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2009-03-19#T17-18-49 This validates, I think, our use of a server side transform. Also, it looks like we can output NTriples instead of RDF/XML. The spec allows it (scrollup in that chat transcript) and major engines (like Jena) accept it. I would prefer we used XSLT 2.0 so we can at least make it somewhat typesafe. From a security perspective, it seems that Jena puts up a warning at least the first time you use GRDDL, but it's unclear if it does it every time it downloads a new transform. I don't know if it caches, so the effect on W3C traffic is still unknown. I don't know anything momre about signing or checksumming the XSLT, so I think it still is a fairly large security risk. My (subjective) impression from the #swig chat is that there are active portions of the GRDDL community who are less...militant about the form of the transform and its mode of delivery. So, we should consider whether the vocal pro-specific-transform-delivered- specifically are, in fact, representative. Obviously, this is subject to confirmation bias on my part. But given that several (though not *all*, by any means!) of the vehement pro- GRDDL people are also, independently anti-OWL/XML and not obvious users of it, I do believe that we do not need to go overboard wrt catering to their demands. This does not mean I am, by any means, backing out of the tripartite compromise. But it does mean that my motivation for the compromise is weakened compared to the worries I have about GRDDL (esp. at this point, the security issues). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 12:13:13 UTC