Re: Proposal to close as withdrawn ISSUE-31

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 21:33 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> I believe I'm the raiser of the issue. I do think events have  
> overtaken this issue. When OWL 1.1 started, there were several  
> different proposals for how to "do" user defined datatypes. Protege  
> had an RDF internal syntax. Pellet used URIs into XML Schema documents.

<snip>

> Given that there is, mildly  
> speaking, not a lot of enthusiasm for this in the group, I suggest  
> that we close this as withdrawn. Or just close it with no action.

If enthusiasm materialized, it could always be re-opened.

There is, I believe, a general question of whether we need to address
the advice given in the SWBP datatypes document [1].  Section 2 of that
document specifically addresses ISSUE-31.  Section 3 addresses
ISSUE-126.

-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/