- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:19:32 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <14612C72-438C-4701-86DB-8F772E125FB3@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 8 May 2008, at 16:52, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> 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 This report might eventually be out of date, but then so be it.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? ...how would the above proposal break this promise? It doesn't say "don't have a GRDDL/XSLT pointed at", but it says "have a GRDDL/XSLT pointed at, possibly amongst others". > So, is there some big problem with writting the XSLT? I didn't say there was one - I only think that having XSLT being "sticky out" might make some people think/believe/assume that they need it to do anything with OWL. Cheers, Uli > 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 Friday, 9 May 2008 11:18:57 UTC