- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:32:34 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> On 2 Jul 2008, at 20:10, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [snip]
> > I don't have a strong opinion about these different approaches, but I
> > think we should be clear that these are primarily interim designs for
> > use until there's a standard format for RDF with named graphs. And we
> > should make sure whatever approach we pick can be compatible with a
> > future named-graphs standard,
>
> How can we possibly do this :)
>
> Plus, won't whatever they do take what we did into account?
To rephrase: let's make sure our approach does not preclude a design for
named graphs which works smoothly with OWL 2.
We can do that, more or less, with an existence proof: come up with a
(non-standard) design for named graphs which works smoothly with OWL 2.
Of course some future WG might not pick that design, due to other
constraints, but I think we'll at least have done our part.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 19:34:08 UTC