- From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:43:36 +0100
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Sean, hello. On 2008 Oct 17, at 09:58, Sean Bechhofer wrote: > Norman seems happy with the notion of adding the datatype to the > notation, although with the caveat that he didn't want to make > things any more complicated that providing a datatype URI. Our > proposal is now to revert to the original wording (e.g. > skos:notation is used with typed literals), and possibly include a > reference to [1] in the text. That sounds good for me. As long as I can say <#notation> dc:description "blah, blah". then I think both I and our readers would be happy. > Alistair and I have talked briefly about this. As Guus says, the OWL > spec [1] requires that applications treat unrecognised datatypes the > same as unsupported datatypes, which essentially means treating > lexically identical items as equivalent. My guess is that this will > actually be appropriate behaviour for the majority of notations. It would certainly be appropriate for us. Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk Dept Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 10:44:13 UTC