- From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:17:30 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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 that we close this as withdrawn.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/
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:18:10 UTC