- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:05:41 -0400
- 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 UTC