- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:28 -0400
- To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> as an alternative approach, why don't we make a > > - call for implementations (in the candidate recommendation phase) and > - gather pointers (including a pointer to a GRDDL document) > - and then summarize these in a document (the CR implementation report). > > This report might eventually be out of date, but then so be it. > > What would be wrong with this? If GRDDL works on day one, then systems consuming OWL (in the RDF/XML serialization) with a GRDDL processor in the loop can keep consuming all W3C Recommended OWL. If GRDDL doesn't work on day one (and keep working), those systems will be cut off from the new world of OWL using the XML Serialization (unless the implement a new parser). Those folks (the people who have adopted OWL so far) will be justifiably unhappy about this. Othor people may also be pressured not to adopt the new XML Serialization because their ontologies will be unusable by some significant fraction of the OWL world. (This is in addition to the OWL 1 vs OWL 2 fracturing, that's a necessary cost we're planning for.) Now, it may be that in practice no one consumes OWL via RDF/XML with GRDDL in the loop. It may be that, in practice, folks consuming RDF/XML are faced with the option of either implementing GRDDL or implenting the new XML Serialization. In that case, they might well skip GRDDL. That would be okay, I suppose, but GRDDL will (in theory) have many other uses as well, so they probably should implement GRDDL soon anyway, for loading their data from their XML sources. Procedurally, as Alan mentioned on yesterday's telecon, the commitment to deliver GRDDL has already been made [1]. People can argue what exactly the commitment meands (eg Bijan's point that it doesn't necessarily mean XSLT or on-line), but I think people reading the charter could reasonably understand us to be promising a working on-line XSLT-based transform -- that's certainly how I read it. I think any attempt to back out on that deliverable would need to be renegotiated with the broader community (technically via a re-chartering, but a broad discussion across the Semantic Web community would probably be enough). Basically, if we're going to break a promise, we have to make sure no one will mind, right? So, is there some big problem with writting the XSLT? I suspect soon it will become more cost-effective to implement it than to keep discussing it. -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 15:54:38 UTC