- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:55:42 +0100
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > On 28 okt 2008, at 09:06, Ivan Herman wrote: >> What about '.owlx'? >> >> maybe as a matter of consistency we can also consider using 'owlf' >> and >> 'owlm' for the other two. >> >> Ivan > > Although certainly prettier, By leaps and bounds. > I think it would create problems on FAT-based file systems that > (still) use the 8.3 naming scheme as these may truncate a long > extension to three characters. But they would truncate to .owl, right? That seems harmless to me. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 08:56:18 UTC