I'm happy to go with whatever is the community decision here - should ".owl"
default to assuming RDF/XML?
neither am I, maybe time to phase out the owl extension. in what
serialization does jena read the owl file in my example?
N-Quads - the default for tdbloader
(think pipeline
gzip -d < FILE.nq.gz | tdbloader -- -
)
There is no formal definition of ".owl". It is mentioned in OWL1 but not in
OWL2.
if it is used I think we should assume a RDF/XML serialization
This came about from
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-users/201308.mbox/%3C52169A5B.4060902%40knublauch.com%3E
I share Holgers concerns here but would not go along with the
assumption to find a ttl serialization in an .owl file.
but reviewing that it could be the initial analysis was wrong as the report
was expanded upon over several rounds of email.
Adding .owl in as a default extension to mean RDF/XML does not break any of
the tests.
Andy
this might be a good solution until the community has come to some
consensus on file extensions.
let me say thank you to the entire team for the new release. well done!
On behalf of everyone, thank you.
Andy
