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. Interesting. > 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. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 20:07:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC