SHORT VERSION (Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format)

• From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
• Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:14:39 +0000
• To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
• Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <991A861D-B38B-4147-8348-3E740EA9190F@cs.man.ac.uk>

Here's the short version of the question I'm trying to get answered:

	In order to be satisfied with the XML serialization moving from LC  
to CR do you require:
		1) A native XSLT hosted at <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> with  
whatever else is necessary to indicate that this is the  
transformation arbitrary GRDDL agents should download?
		2) A native XSLT hosted as a WG note?
		3) A commitment from the working group to specifically call for an  
XSLT implementation of the OWL/XML --> RDF transformation along with  
a commitment to maintain a list of such tools in a prominent place in  
the OWL WG space?

	If 3, would you consider it a blocker for moving from CR to PR/Rec  
if no such implementation appeared?

I strongly prefer 3. Many GRDDL people require 1. I don't know where  
you stand, thus I don't know how to interpret your comment.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:11:23 UTC