RE: draft response for LC comment 65 MS8

Hi!

I will be fine with this. Actually, point 3 alone will obviously be
sufficient to satisfy me. :)

Cheers,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:06 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 65 MS8
>
>[Draft Response for LC Comment 65:] MS8
>
>Dear Michael,
>
>Thank you for your sixth message
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0000.html>
>on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
>Datatype declarations are currently in the functional syntax for three
>reasons:
>
>1/ For symmetry, allowing all entities to be declared.
>
>2/ To better capture RDF graphs with typing triples.
>
>3/ To allow for named dataranges.
>
>Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
><mailto:public-owl-wg@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>
>Regards,
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>
>
>
>
>From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
>Subject: RE: draft response for LC comment 65 MS8
>Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:41:05 +0100
>
>> Hi Peter!
>>
>> Let's defer this until we have decided on named data ranges. With
>Boris'
>> proposal [1] my LC comment will become moot, since a datatype
>declaration
>> will then be necessary for a DatatypeDefinition.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>wg/2009Mar/0066.html>