Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

Bijan, can you let us know your reasons for these, esp number 8- if we  
can do keys, couldnt we do this by same mechanism?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2007, at 16:55, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> 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.
>