- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:18:51 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:09, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Antoine Zimmermann >> <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote: >>> Boris Motik a =E9crit : >>>> >>>> =A0[...] >>>> Note that this is *exactly* the same problem as the one we have >>>> with >>>> xsd:decimal >>>> and xsd:double; hence, I consider it really strange to use one >>>> solution >>>> for >>>> numerics but a completely different one for dates. >>> >>> I agree. And for consistency, it would be reasonable to adopt this >>> change= >> , >>> IMHO. >>> >>>> [...] >>>> - Nobody (such as RIF) can scorn us for going our way: we can >>>> always poi= >> nt >>>> to >>>> XML Schema and say "Here is the holy bible!" >>> >>> The Bible is all about interpretation ;-) >> >> Hello Antoine. >> I'd consider something of a failure if anything in our normative >> specification is subject to interpretation. Would you not agree that >> the bible is a rather bad example to follow if one is writing a >> specification? >> -Alan > > I believe Antoine was making a (rather funny, IMHO) joke, and perhaps > also a point to Boris that *just* pointing to XML Schema will, in some > cases, be a disservice to folks using our specs. [snip] I don't see that at all. Boris's point is simple: We can't be criticized for deviating from XML Schema if we don't deviate. I think this will set lots of peoples' mind at rest instead of getting into difficult and contentious arguments. Personally, I think it's much easier to justify a new datatype that covers a new area (rationals and reals) than it is to justify (to the public) mucking with the extant datatypes. And I think that's Boris's point. Antoine's comment *was* funny and I suggest we not take throw away jokes as fodder for discussion. I don't see a need to write a "how to read XML Schema" at this point. Our texts are clear. The collective understanding of what XML Schema means in an OWL context is *far* higher than it was before. I feel comfortable with us going to CR with our current state of play. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:19:29 UTC