Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

2008/5/13 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>:


>
> It would help me if I could see a hypothetical circumstances what you
> think the case is successfully made to go against the SHOULD.
>
> In the OWL/XML case we have:
>        1) an existing specification (at the W3C) for a format closely
> identified with semweb
>        2) widely available (in multiple ways) implementations
>        3) a culture of manually invoked translation (e.g., between Turtle
> versions and OWL/RDF, etc.)
>        4) no clear use case for other sorts of user programs wherein they
> would have grddl but not be able to manage other ways of getting translation
>                And no clamor from users of those tools who are also OWL
> users. Alan Ruttenberg *is* an OWL user, but my understanding is that he's
> concerned more with legacy OWL oriented tools that only consume RDF/XML.
>        5) a somewhat complex transformation
>
> (And let us presume there is an existing, seemingly decent, XSLT to hand.
> Or two!)


Of these 4) stands out - there may be a use case, simply where the consumer
may not have any specific motivation to invest in format-specific support
but still benefit from the data. Is there any likelihood that an arbitrary
OWL/XML document might contain information that's useful in a plain old RDF
interpretation? (e.g. a Tabulator view)

But if you're saying in effect that anyone likely to want to use OWL/XML
really should be using dedicated tools, then perhaps it isn't appropriate to
make this distinction within the format's GRDDL definition. This could still
fit with Harry's suggestion of providing information in the namespace doc as
well as the XSLT - "we recommend that OWL2 users make use of translator Z
for these reasons...but an RDF/XML representation is also available through
GRDDL/XSLT".

Still assuming the XSLT could be created and maintained at minimal cost.

Cheers,
Danny.