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: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:27:20 +0000
Message-Id: <10B64213-0B74-44CB-B838-E8A5F164F074@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
On 25 Feb 2009, at 15:10, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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.

I don't see how you could be unsure.

I oppose adding anything else on this point to the specs.

FWIW, you consistently over and mis-state (IMHO) what the problem was  
and then propose overreactions.

(For example, you tend to ignore the fact that the spec mentioned a  
bunch of datatypes as optional and didn't have a good picture of  
datatype extension *and* had an extremely impoverished set of  
required types *and* occurred in a situation where there were  
relatively few implementations and almost no institutions or  
community. None of these are true now.)

The text you cited specifically does what you are asking for. The XSD  
namespace is reserved. That's all that needs or should be said. If  
you think there is a reading of that text that would produce a  
problematic outcome, please suggest it and we can see what wording  
would suffice.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:23:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:23:47 GMT