Well, I believe we should first decide whether we want n-ary datatypes in the language. If we decide we don't want them, I'll remove any mention to them; if we decide to include n-ary datatypes, I shall complete the document. The scenario where I am first going to remove all references to n-ary datatypes just to add them back two weeks later I find highly undesirable, and I hope you sympathize. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working > Group Issue Tracker > Sent: 24 May 2008 01:55 > To: public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: ISSUE-127 (narynotyet): documents contain bits of nary datatype but these are not yet in OWL > 2 [editorial] > > > > ISSUE-127 (narynotyet): documents contain bits of nary datatype but these are not yet in OWL 2 > [editorial] > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg > On product: > > At least the syntax, rdf mapping, and semantics documents contain portions that refer to nary > datatypes. As we have not yet decided to include nary datatypes in OWL 2, these should be removed. > >Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 07:42:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 24 May 2008 07:42:06 GMT