- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:31:12 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 28 Jan 2009, at 02:40, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>>> Well, I think we do already :) But if you mean an XSLT, then we >>>> can do >>>> the wrapper thing quickly. Rees indicated that that wasn't >>>> acceptable! >>>> >>>> Verra strange. >>> >>> Maybe you missed where I said my reason to dislike the web service >>> (XSLT+CGI) was that it was complicated and fragile. >> >> I don't think it is. Certainly not *more* complicated and fragile. > > The reason that this option was rejected I don't see that it was rejected. > was that it required users to > ship their files to the site where the cgi was running. This was no > good for users inside companies where this would represent an > unacceptable exposure of potentially proprietary information. Um...and running an unvetted program is ok? > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.04.30/Minutes#Issue_97 That does not represent a decision by the working group, AFICT. The conversations I had with Ivan and Sandro took place well after this conversation. Even so, I don't see how it's *fragile*. Insecure, maybe. (Of course, this generally supports my point: It's not just a transformation, but a transformation meeting *quite* a few detailed implementation demands. Which is inappropriate for the WG.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 07:31:48 UTC