Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Conrad Bock wrote:

> Boris put it very well in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html
> where he says it is very useful to have a data storage  
> specification for
> the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG,
> actually!).  It is important that such a storage specification be
> generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible.
> It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage
> specifications for OWL.

Agreed, however does it make sense for there to be a storage  
mechanism for OWL specifically, rather than building on whatever  
storage mechanism is chosen for RDF?

-Alan