W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:00:23 +0000
Message-Id: <6A76CE71-3412-4189-869A-71C1E0FD979D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>

On 22 Jan 2009, at 15:41, Chris Welty wrote:

> </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.

Does this include owl:rational? Or only the additional string types?  
I.e., literally *xsd* or types in general. If types in general then I  
think it's futile since new types are coming down the line (i.e.,  
quantity types).

If the latter, why not support them? Esp. since they are all  
definable anyway (being, essentially, range restrictions).

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 15:57:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC