Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

</chair>
Personally (but I believe I am representing a wider community, and certainly 
several folks at IBM I've conversed with), I intended the statement to be more 
general than just compatibility between OWL and RIF through OWL RL.

I think there should be one set of xsd's for the semantic web.  Stepping back 
from RIF and OWL, it seems ridiculous to me that each would maintain a different 
set.
<chair>

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> The point being we don't really care if they keep owl:rational and the 
>> string subtypes but it would preferable if they were not required within 
>> at least the OWL2 RL profile.
> 
> Maybe we can be more explicit about that?  Rather than just say what
> we're doing, say that we request OWL drop these types from the
> RL-profile?   Then OWL-WG can just say "yes".
> 
> On numeric disjointness, maybe also point them to 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0017.html
> ?    Or I'll do that later.
> 
-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty