Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A proposal for resolution

On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

I agree with everything you say in your email, except this:

> - We should say that ( is  
> an incorrect interpretation of the OWL 1 specification. After all,  
> this document was nonnormative, so this may be acceptable.

I don't believe we have to say anything about the relationship of  
this note to OWL 1, as I don't think it speaks as an interpretation  
of OWL 1. Rather we can just say something about what motivates our  
choice in the requirements document, if we choose to adopt a  
differing solution.


Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 14:46:27 UTC