W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: LANG: owl:import - Two Proposals

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:05:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3D9C5CC5.BD91D88E@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> >
> >  > >>  Oh well. That's an artifact of the decision to use RDF,
> >however we decided
> >>  >>  to use RDF/XML at F2F 2.
> >>  >
> >>  >Sure this isn't a deal-breaker, but because of it, proposal #1 has the
> >>  >advantage of us not having to constantly answer the question "So tell me
> >>  >again why the contents of an ontology are described outside of the
> >>  ><Ontology> tag?"
> >>
> >>  Not sure I understand, reopening decisions isn't to be taken lightly
> >>
> >
> >I don't see it as reopening the decision. The decision is pretty vague,
> >so I guess it comes down to a matter of interpretation.
> 
> Sorry what part of
> Resolved: XML/RDF will be the exchange format for OWL.
> do you not understand?

I was referring to the decision as recorded in the minutes from the F2F.
Maybe that's not what you all decided, but I wasn't there so all I have
to go on is what was recorded. I quote from [1]:

RESOLVED:
    1.that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a
transform 
    2.some form of presentation syntax is requirement 
    3.RDF is underlying syntax 

Please see my recent message that explains why I think this decision
does not exclude proposal #1 [2].

Jeff

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html#What:1
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0016.html
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 11:05:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT