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

Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:39:28 -0400
Message-ID: <20090518.203928.180413359.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <sandro@w3.org>
CC: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, <evren@clarkparsia.com>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs 
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:32:59 -0500

> 
>> I disagree.  The Mapping to RDF document indicates how OWL tools should
>> translate between the Functional Syntax and RDF Graphs (which is to
>> leave literals alone, as is appropriate).  The rdf:text document says
>> what should be done when moving RDF Graphs around (which is to replace
>> rdf:text literals with plain literals).  These are two different
>> things.
> 
> One of the options [1] being discussed (and the one I think Boris is
> advocating [2]) is to take all this out of rdf:text.  If that happens,
> would that change your mind?
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0083
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0080

Well if it is all out of rdf:text then there is nothing to be said, so,
sure, I would then be willing to have that all said in our documents.  :-)

peter
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 00:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC