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 17:42:00 +0100
Message-Id: <56BD6699-96E9-4E7A-90D2-51AE9AA07E78@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 16:40, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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.

Just for clarity, what is the argument and what are the hinge points?

Thus far, we've refuted:
	1) That XInclude is not widely deployed (bundled with XMLSpy  
and .NET; I would cry tears of joy if any OWL tool was so bundled).
	2) That XInclude does the job and is a W3C specification

I'll add:
	3) A bespoke solution is no better or overall less work than XInclude.

XInclude works over our two normative syntaxes for exchange. Other  
syntaxes are free to invent their own syntax and adopt sufficiently  
XInclude semantics. If we made our own OwlInclude the other  
syntaxes...still have to invent their own syntax and adopt our  
semantics.

Since I don't see the argument, I'm hard pressed to know what points  
to attend to. Thus far, it seems that *no* refutation of things you  
appeal to have weight. If you could point out the parts that you find  
convincing, i.e., that if they were refuted you would change your  
mind, it would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 16:39:28 UTC

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