Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>> There is *no* solution which is independent of the specific RDF  
>> serialization. If we
>> define a bespoke solution, *all* serializations will have to be  
>> updated.
> I don't understand this statement.


> An inclusion directive could be
> expressed as an RDF triple, and the OWL documentation could specify
> how it should be interpreted (i.e. by including the triples resulting
> from parsing the included document).

Which is a change to the other serializations. They now have a triple  
that they have to interpret specially. Not just at the reasoner  
level, but at the parsing level.

Indeed, why should we impose a triple on them? Turtle might prefer to  
add an @directive instead. N3 might prefer to use their own builtin.


Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 20:07:40 UTC