W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Trying to understand the GRDDL Problem

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:00:23 +0000
Message-Id: <2D92D55F-BFA5-4288-995F-CBB887C469A1@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On 5 Nov 2008, at 10:11, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Bijan!
>
> After heaving read the F2F4 minutes, I found that I am still not sure
> whether I understand what your concerns are with GRDDL in OWL/XML
> (ISSUE-97). I thought in the meeting that this must have to do with  
> the
> danger of "standardizing a broken implementation",

On of my in principle objections is to standardizing and  
implementation, period.

But yes, I also do not believe an acceptable implementation that we  
can usefully verify will be forthcoming. At the F2F, Ivan, Sandro,  
and I discussed a possible alternative (based on what I thought was a  
joke!) using the OWL API and web based services. I don't think that's  
ideal, but meh. I sell my principles for my graduate students :)

> but that's just my
> speculation. Can you please summarize in a few sentences what the  
> problem
> is? Or provide a pointer to some earlier mail from which your position
> becomes clear?

You might look at the wiki page Ivan put together:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/GRDDL_Issue

I think at this point, though others should correct me if I'm wrong,  
that the procedural issue has been satisfied, i.e., our charter and  
the GRDDL spec do not require us to have a downloadable XSLT.  
However, there are a group of people who believe that we should do so  
(including a prominent swath of the GRDDL WG).

There are links at the bottom to extensive discussions.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 16:58:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC