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

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:02:47 +0100
Message-Id: <AFEF155F-B6EF-47D9-80AD-C6622CE0A9AB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 12 Sep 2008, at 11:11, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> Thanks for the summary of the problem, which addresses my
> understanding of the issue. The idea of having an inclusion mechanism
> in addition to imports seems like a reasonable idea and I would
> support such a move in general. However the proposal to link it to XML
> raises issues - there are different serializations of RDF and it is
> preferable to have a solution that is independent of a particular
> serialization, as others have pointed out in different discussions
> earlier in the working group. In addition the use of the general power
> of XInclude and XPointer seems like substantially more than what is
> needed here, and may impose implementation burden as the technology is
> not afaik, not widely deployed.

I'm  not sure how unwidely deployed it is, a simple googling reveals:

Actually, I think the last is pretty dispositive. If it's bundled  
with .NET it's ipso facto widely available. If it's in libxml,  
likewise. It's er..."included"...with XMLSpy...

Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 11:00:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC