- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:40:42 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan, can you let us know your reasons for these, esp number 8- if we can do keys, couldnt we do this by same mechanism? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 5, 2007, at 16:55, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> 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 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 21:41:48 UTC