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

Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:57:06 +0000
Message-Id: <105A6973-B0A3-4D5A-88A3-73EA70A90C00@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 24 Feb 2009, at 06:50, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific
> datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added
> to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected).

Why? I don't think I had that intention.

> AFAIK, there is no
> proscription against this and I would like to have there be.

I'm not sure why this is useful. I'd rather implementations hashed  
out issues before hand. And for datatypes we've rejected...why not  
let implementations have them?

A proscription that is ignored (and rightly so) is a bad proscription  
in my book. It's already clear from the spec that *anything* beyond  
the current set is a bit risky.

Also, what if some other organization wanted to standardize the xml  
schema future types (e.g., oasis)?

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 13:53:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC