- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:55:07 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Apr 2008, at 17:39, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 7 Apr 2008, at 17:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> There is an implementation in java: http://xml.apache.org/commons/ >> components/resolver/ >> What I don't know is whether there being a java implementation >> would satisfy all reasoner developers - presumably there are non- >> java reasoners. > [snip] >>> I also thought it looks heavier than might be desirable, from the >>> point of view getting developer adoption. Perhaps a limited >>> subset of it, or a minimal set of constructs with developers free >>> to implement more? > > I guess my first question then is that if there is an existing > standard (which might be subsetted or not) then perhaps there's > nothing, at this time, for the working group to do. [snip] Er...the question version is that given existing standards that (seem to) meet the need....why should we do anything at all. Kendall asked this at the F2F as well. Compare with using XInclude for imports. I would *love* if we could outsource imports to that technology, but there are legacy reasons (we already have owl imports) and technical reasons (I think using it for rdf/xml may fail hard, not to mention non-xml formats). I still think we'd be better off, assuming the viability of XInclude in general, in using it, all other things being equal. Sometimes *best* fit needs to yield to *reasonable* fit. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 16:53:14 UTC