- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:51:19 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Ivan Herman wrote: > > > Sandro Hawke wrote: >> Here's a possible solution for ISSUE-111 [1], with some variations and >> discussion. I was only considering the RDF/XML serialization here. For >> the XML serialization, a MIME type could a good solution. >> >> * Basic Approach: >> >> Use an ontology property. So the users adds a triple like this: >> >> <> owl:intendedProfile owl:DL. >> >> This would have processing-model semantics, much like owl:imports. The >> processing model is something like this: >> 1. You fetch the content from some URI U. >> 2. If its Content-Type is "application/rdf+xml", proceed. >> (otherwise, this procedure doesn't apply; it's not OWL >> in RDF/XML.) > > What about other RDF serializations (current, like Turtle, or others > that may come in future?). Would it lead to problems if we cast in > concrete the role of RDF/XML here? > The GRDDL spec managed a reasonable compromise between explicitness (RDF/XML) and generality (RDF graph). e.g. graph [[ If an information resource([WEBARCH], section 2.2) IR is represented by an XML document with an XPath root node R, and R has a GRDDL transformation with a transformation property TP, and TP applied to R gives an RDF Graph[RDFC04] G, then G is a GRDDL result of IR. ]] e.g. RDF/XML [[ If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR. ]] I imagine that this issue can be handled similarly. Also we need to take into account OWL/XML Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:53:21 UTC