- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:11:28 -0500
- To: <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Conrad Bock wrote: > Boris put it very well in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html > where he says it is very useful to have a data storage > specification for > the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG, > actually!). It is important that such a storage specification be > generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible. > It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage > specifications for OWL. Agreed, however does it make sense for there to be a storage mechanism for OWL specifically, rather than building on whatever storage mechanism is chosen for RDF? -Alan
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 00:11:40 UTC