W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:38:59 +0000
Message-Id: <2F2FC92F-2D57-421C-B1DC-7747509EFD36@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

I already added several issues to the Agenda, more or less starting  
from the top. Hopefully some of these are uncontentious. Others may  
be contentious but need to be discussed. I don't want to be too  
ambitious -- we can continue to work our way down the list if we  
finish with these ones :-)

Regarding annotations, there are already several issues that refer to  
annotations. Would it be possible to combine some/all of these with  
your proposal (e.g., issue 32). We could then discuss this  
consolidated issue.


On 5 Nov 2007, at 21:55, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> I would like datatypes and data predicates to go on the agenda,  
> though I don't think we can settle all the issues this week by any  
> means (perhaps any?). What would interest me is
> 	*if people felt that the inline system *should* be switched to XML  
> Schema syntax in the RDF mapping or strongly *should not* (I've  
> heard some implementors say, Not) and
> 	* how to deal with external user defined datatypes. We then need  
> to send whatever solution to these two things we come up with to  
> the XML Schema WG for review.
> I don't see that we can usefully start defining built-in n-ary  
> datatype predicates until it's decided that we'll have them, so if  
> Jeremy could get some cycles to consider my recapitulation of his  
> (and David Turner's) objections, that would be helpful. We could  
> spend a *little* telecon time building momentum for discussion for  
> the following week.
> I would also like some telecon time to talk about rich annotations.  
> Again, I doubt we could *settle* anything, but I'd like to get a  
> sense of whether I should pursue my current sketchy proposal.
> I think it would be good practice and morale boosting to decide  
> some issues. Surely there must be *some* uncontentious ones ;) I  
> suggest the following (with my belief on how they should go):
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/2 (easy yes)
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/8 (easy no)
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/15 (easy yes)
> I suppose the chairs could just not open 8, but I think opening and  
> closing could be fun!
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 22:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC