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

Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:18:30 -0500
Message-ID: <4978FEC6.1050604@gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@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>


I don't undersand what "it" refers to below in "it's futile".

The decisions to support (or not support) a datatype in the RIF discussions has 
typically been grounded in the implementation burden vs. utility tradeoff.


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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).
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 23:19:16 UTC

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