W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:56:49 +0000
Message-Id: <C5576A88-06FF-4AF6-ACCD-4AEEBB64E145@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 9 Feb 2009, at 15:33, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> This was an informal meeting, to advance understanding of the issues,
> with no decisions, etc.   So, these are more "notes" than "minutes".
>
> My sense of the outcomes:
>   - Alan and Jos will talk more to get details on some real problems
>     users will face if OWL follows the non-disjoint path

I feel inclined to point out that there's sentiment inside the OWL WG  
to go disjoint:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-04#RIF1

You know, from me :) I was never too happy on this point in the first  
place. Boris, one of the main champions, has changed his mind based  
on implementation experience (in part).

>   - OWL will seriously consider dropping NCName, etc

I'd like to know the rationale for dropping built-in derived types.  
I.e., both OWL, and I understand, RIF can define these types, so why  
not use the standard names for them?

Just a hint, to get me started :) Implementations that didn't want to  
build them in could always add defined versions...

>   - RIF will seriously consider adopting owl:rational (and  
> owl:real* ?)

Hurrah! You guys super rock!

Go RIF GOOOOOO! Be rational! Stay real!

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 15:53:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 15:53:21 GMT