- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:48:57 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 15 Sep 2008, at 14:41, Ivan Herman wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On 15 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Jim Hendler wrote: >> > [snip] >> >> >> Let me try to tease out the various options. Corrections welcome. >> >> 1) (Alan's) We put a *triple* (i.e., change the graph) in. >> Advantages: >> "works"[1] for all RDF serializations. Disadvantages: Breaks >> syntactic >> layering; contaminates the graph and the structural model; >> *requires* a >> bespoke solution (thus precludes using standards like XInclude). >> > > Just for my understanding: why would this solution preclude using > XInclude? If there is an extra triple defined in some vocabulary, > wouldn't that be orthogonal to the usage of XInclude? The difference is whether the triple *duplicates* the XInclude (i.e., an XInclude statement without a corresponding triple would be non- conforming) or is an *additional* mechanism. Obviously, anyone can pop xinclude in, but a conforming OWL RDF/XML parser wouldn't have to recognize it (by our specs). I guess. Getting ugly quickly :( Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 13:46:24 UTC