- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:57:31 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "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.
I don't have an opinion on that, but I'll note procedurally that on or
before Last Call we need an answer to these. Maybe this needs to be an
Issue. Specifically, our Last Call drafts need to include any Media
Type (aka MIME-Type, Content-Type) registrations (as per [1]), and the
registration form asks which "File extension(s)" and "Macintosh file
type code(s)" are to be used.
See section 10 of RIF-BLD [2] for an example.
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Appendix:_RIF_Media_Type_Registration
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 11:59:39 UTC