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

Re: agenda item for Teleconference 5 November on MIME types (ISSUE-145)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:46 +0100
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0810280202v90fcad3j4963a7e09b75d9f4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Rinke Hoekstra" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Whatever we choose, we might do a check against a resource like
http://filext.com/ to check that there isn't an unfortunate
association to some file type that might commonly associate the OWL
file to a common existing application.

-Alan

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 09:03:21 UTC

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