Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map

On 25 Feb 2009, at 06:45, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> I am not suggesting forbidding all datatypes. I am suggesting it is
> not a good idea to let random people define semantics for datatypes
> that are likely to get standardized, or at a minimum warn that a
> future working group is likely to tromple on them. At least within the
> W3 space. If we hadn't had this be an issue with datatype support - a
> legacy of the choice (or lack) in OWL 1 - an actual case where this
> hurts, I wouldn't bring this up. We are interested in promoting
> interoperability and this is along the lines of doing so.
>
> We already prevent people, at least in DL, from using terms from the
> rdf(s), xsd, and owl namespaces.

I still don't understand why this phrase doesn't satisfy your wishes.

Or does it?

Is this comment mooted?

Cheers,
Bijan.