Re: LC: Opposing OWL/XML format

As I say, having XHTML+RDFa would probably work. Whether it is served as
text/html or not is a separate issue.

If we decide _what_ should be there, I am happy to create (and test) the
RDFa file

Ivan

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf