- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:35:18 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
I believe it is highly unlikely that such suffixes as: ".owx" and ".ofn" will ever be used, much less dominantly used. Current practice (from the OWL API and P4) is to use .owl for pretty much all syntaxes and do sniffing to determine the right one. I have some tendency to use ".xml" for OWL/XML to get it to doubleclick into oXygen. Given these facts, I think we should normalize on ".owl" as acceptable for all syntaxes with ".xml" and ".txt" being reasonable alternatives for the xml and text formats (respectively). It does mean that you can't have all the syntaxes in distinct files in the same directory, which is a wart. But that really seems to be a very rare case (I've never seen it). IOW, it seems like the syntax specific type tags are a dead letter and we should adjust to that reality. I don't see any sufficient benefit to switching to them. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2009 13:36:00 UTC