- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:38:59 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I already added several issues to the Agenda, more or less starting from the top. Hopefully some of these are uncontentious. Others may be contentious but need to be discussed. I don't want to be too ambitious -- we can continue to work our way down the list if we finish with these ones :-) Regarding annotations, there are already several issues that refer to annotations. Would it be possible to combine some/all of these with your proposal (e.g., issue 32). We could then discuss this consolidated issue. Ian On 5 Nov 2007, at 21:55, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > I would like datatypes and data predicates to go on the agenda, > though I don't think we can settle all the issues this week by any > means (perhaps any?). What would interest me is > > *if people felt that the inline system *should* be switched to XML > Schema syntax in the RDF mapping or strongly *should not* (I've > heard some implementors say, Not) and > * how to deal with external user defined datatypes. We then need > to send whatever solution to these two things we come up with to > the XML Schema WG for review. > > I don't see that we can usefully start defining built-in n-ary > datatype predicates until it's decided that we'll have them, so if > Jeremy could get some cycles to consider my recapitulation of his > (and David Turner's) objections, that would be helpful. We could > spend a *little* telecon time building momentum for discussion for > the following week. > > I would also like some telecon time to talk about rich annotations. > Again, I doubt we could *settle* anything, but I'd like to get a > sense of whether I should pursue my current sketchy proposal. > > I think it would be good practice and morale boosting to decide > some issues. Surely there must be *some* uncontentious ones ;) I > suggest the following (with my belief on how they should go): > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/2 (easy yes) > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/8 (easy no) > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/15 (easy yes) > > I suppose the chairs could just not open 8, but I think opening and > closing could be fun! > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 22:39:19 UTC