Re: review of rdf:text

On 30 Mar 2009, at 22:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> The parts of the document that the OWL spec depends on appear to be  
> fine
> to me.  However, the function part of the document has several  
> unresolved
> issues, mostly having to do with details of the various functions that
> RIF wants to define over rdf:text.
>
> I suggest that the document be published along with our other  
> documents
> so that we have a complete set of documents.  We will say that  
> Sections
> 1-4 should be treated as last call, and that OWL does not depend on
> Section 5 of the document.

Is there any reason that section 5 should be in rdf:text? Isn't the  
case that, in general, RIF defines its functions in a document  
separate from the datatype definitions?

Cheers,
Bijan.