On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Boris Motik wrote: I agree with everything you say in your email, except this: > - We should say that (http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/) is > an incorrect interpretation of the OWL 1 specification. After all, > this document was nonnormative, so this may be acceptable. I don't believe we have to say anything about the relationship of this note to OWL 1, as I don't think it speaks as an interpretation of OWL 1. Rather we can just say something about what motivates our choice in the requirements document, if we choose to adopt a differing solution. -Alan
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 14:46:27 UTC