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 mor
> e 
> 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 differ
> ent 
> set.
> <chair>

Good point.  I'd support asking them to remove them from OWL, but I
guess you don't have a WG resolution to back that part up.

    - s

> 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