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

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:40:53 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0809120840i7f6900c7x6385e0378a797c39@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)
> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0400
>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Isn't RDF/XML *the* RDF serialization?
>>
>> That we have turtle in the Primer is just one piece of evidence that
>> this is not the case. As I said, and as had been argued persuasively
>> in the past,
>
> Pointers, please.

For example in the discussion of issue 94 we made no allowances for
name restrictions to avoid rdf/xml serialization issues, and in the
discussion of ontology URIs concerns about xml:base were clearly
delineated as being in a realm distinct from our specification.

Not that the argument hinges on this.

-Alan

>
>> a solution that is specific to a particular serialization
>> of RDF is undesirable.
>>
>> -Alan
>
> peter
>
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:41:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC