RE: Characterising OWL consistency checkers

>> - If we have a non-empty list of supported datatypes I would like
>> rdf:XMLLiteral in it.
>You amaze me.

Always happy to entertain!

For the benefit of those who weren't add the editors' meeting:
- this was probably the most contentious part of the day
- I review some of my arguments

1) Given a canonicalizing RDF/XML parser (and these exist) then implementing 
the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype requires a string compare (and nothing more).

2) There is significant benefit in permitting interoperability between OWL and 
other W3C technologies based on XML. A class of use cases depends on data 
being entered at one point, either as an XML document, or as XHTML; then 
going through two or more paths to an OWL system. Along one path the document 
is read in and written out again in accordance with XML conventions - which 
may change stuff not in the infoset but should leave, for instance, 
significant whitespace unchanged. OWL should do its best to permit full 
interoperation in such a scenario.

Part (1) seemed to be the more contentious of these assertions; with many 
people doubting that canonicalization was easy to implement or could be 
completed handed off to the parser.


Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 10:51:18 UTC