- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:56:15 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
On 29 Jan 2009, at 09:21, Ivan Herman wrote: [snip] > From a GRDDL perspective, _if_ the namespace document (say, an XML > file, > including a possibility for XHTML) includes the necessary GRDDL > mechanism to yield an XSLT transform, then, well, it has it and > will use it. > > 'GRDDL mechanism' means that the XML file contains the GRDDL > attributes to > > - generate an RDF on its own right (just as for any GRDD-able XML) > - the generated RDF contains triplets to get to the XSLT transform for > the original data that started the process via a namespace URI /me wonders whatever happened to conneg :) Or RDDDL > So yes, indeed, I see two different issues here that are > interrelated... > > 1. Putting the OWL/XML and GRDDL issue aside, the question is _what_ > should be at the http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl URI. What format (XHTML > or RDF) and, if RDF, what should that contain. I prefer text/html. > 2. Because the _same_ URI is used both for the OWL/XML namespace in > the > XML sense and for the URI prefix for the OWL case, we may hit some > problems with the clashes indeed [snip] > We could also, ehem, ehem:-) reverse our earlier decision on the > OWL/XML > namespace and separate it into another URI. That would mean a clean > separation for GRDDL processing. As you can well imagine, that is a huge non-starter for me :) Indeed, if this is a consequence of adding GRDDL support, then it strengthens by quite a bit my opposition to GRDDL! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 09:52:51 UTC