- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Ian, My goal in bringing this up was to point out the dependency and potential overlap between ODM and OWL revised. Because of that, it would be good to create a formal relationship that can be tapped when (if) we need to address these issues in the future. However, there is no need to create a regular item for this in the agenda (as was done in some other groups). ODM is not undergoing any major changes anymore and so there would be little on which to report (although there are still quite a few open issues against the UML -> OWL mapping chapter which will be addressed in the coming months). Of course, if the UML and MOF metamodel in the OWL1.1 submission were to disappear en-route to LC then the overlap would also disappear. In any case, I don't see an urgent need to address this tomorrow. -Evan Ian Horrocks wrote: >Evan, > >Relationships with other W3C groups is a charter "expectation", hence >the agenda item. I for one would be more than happy to establish >relationships with groups outside W3C. I'm not sure that we will have >time to discuss this in tomorrow's teleconf, but I will add an item >to the agenda in the expectation that it will be postponed but not >forgotten. > >Ian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 18:19:07 UTC