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

Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:10:53 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902250710y11f869bet31111fa2934ad45@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I'm not sure whether it does or not. In any case like it to be phrased
in a way that there isn't any doubt and would prefer that the
statement be more proximate to the other information about datatype
conformance.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:11:34 GMT