- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:10:07 +0000
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
- CC: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
I was reading http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0151.html where Jonathan proposes closing 5.13 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.13-Internet-Media-Type-for-OWL by creating a mime type registration for OWL. [Speaking for myself, not RDF Core.] It seems the key aspect that it is recording is the entailment parameter which has a small set of fixed values: simple, RDFS, lite, DL, full (latter being the default) I was wondering several things: * Is this not limiting to the users - how easy is it to create a MIME TYPE parameter in a document (I'm thinking of the HTTP-Equiv <meta> you have to use in the HTMl family) * A fixed list of values seems odd to me from a semantic web architecture point of view - don't we use URI(-ref)s? * Your list assumes these parameter values are distinct and complete; surely there are more subtle relationships between them that would have to be put in this registration document? * If this is of such general utility would it be better to just add this to the RDF mime type draft? Seems occam's razor applies. * If this is such a key requirement, wouldn't it be better to add it to the OWL abstract syntax, and consequently the RDF/XML, such as a parameter off <rdf:RDF> ? I was told in personal communication that crawlers for some of this data use namespaces, file name suffixes to try to guess the appropriate semantics. Surely we can do better than that? It would seem to benefit from being several layers higher than (HTTP say) Content Type parameter Content Type Transfer Protocol File name suffixes, (looking for .owl etc.) abstract syntax being at the concrete syntax level where users have more control and can put it in the files directly. I'm not even sure how you'd enable people to generate all 5 types of entailment on one system using common tools such as apache - you'd need five filename suffixes. And which one would be .owl ? * Of course if it was put in <rdf:RDF>, the default would have to be RDF entailments, so that would mean OWL would have some more boilerplate in the header. This seems more of a brain dump since this is only a proposal by Jonathan. Cheers Dave
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 18:11:08 UTC