- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:13:22 +0100
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 17 Sep 2008, at 11:58, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > I wonder if it might be a good idea to suggest (non normative) > different file extensions for different OWL serializations. Perhaps > something like: > > RDF/XML .owl (legacy) > OWL/XML .owlx > Manchester syntax .owlm > Functional Style Syntax .owlf I wouldn't go there. All of these are distinguishable by sniffing (as the OWL API shows). 4 letter extensions can cause issues,a nd keeping these guys straight can be tricky. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 11:14:01 UTC