- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:01:17 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I wish to remind folks of the concerns I raised in this email: <http://www.w3.org/mid/FA273CF6-82A3-4A43-8B47-A6D6497112A0@cs.man.ac.uk > It seems rather negligent for the W3C to publish auto and invisibly downloaded code without: 1) A security audit 2) a QoS audit I'll point to a potential issue with 2. Either GRDDL is widely used or it is not. If it is widely used, then that suggests that it will put a large load on an already overstressed W3C system. If it is not widely used, then that makes the provision of an XSLT in this matter much less compelling. There are, ways out of that dilemma, of course! I do not mean to suggest otherwise. But I am very concerned that there was no response to my earlier email. I did the work of investigating a series of clients (including some of their source code). <shrug/> It's pretty clear that technical issues and spec text matter very little on this issue. There's a vocal community that takes anything but an XSLT as cause for vocal objection. That's the reality, fair enough. But I think the W3C should establish some sort of internal procedure for this. If then intend to host lots of GRDDL XSLT, these issues need to be dealt with. Indeed, the GRDDL recommendation *evidently* needs some sort of review. The spec has not done well outside people who were directly involved, which is a sign that there are issues with the spec. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 09:01:57 UTC