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

Re: CR Exit Criteria

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 23:33:55 -0400
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <21306.1243049635@ubehebe>

> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider <
> pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: CR Exit Criteria
> > Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:04:44 -0500
> >
> > > On 21 May 2009, at 00:53, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> 1. Resolve dependencies on rdf:text (currently at Last Call) and XSD
> > >>    1.1 Datatypes (currently at Candidate Recommendation).
> > >>> or put rdf:text as risk as described in previous email
> > >
> > > We agreed to make it "at risk" in the spec, so we should mention it
> > > here. I added "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be
> > > removed from the OWL 2 specification."
> >
> > Umm, if rdf:text goes away OWL 2 needs something to replace it with, so
> > I think that the wording should be something like
> >
> > "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be replaced with a
> > datatype with name owl:text that serves the same purpose.
> > Implementations will be able to switch to owl:text by simply replacing
> > occurences of rdf:text with owl:text."
> 
> 
> There are other alternatives. At the moment, for instance, there is
> discussion of using the name rdf:plainLiteral. I suggest something more
> along the lines:
> 
> "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be renamed, replaced, or
> have technical details modified as a result of ongoing work of the joint
> OWL/RIF working group determining its specification."

+1  I was going to say that.

      -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 03:34:05 UTC

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