W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

RE: ISSUE-31 Proposal to resolve

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:06:15 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0A2641B@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:55 AM
>To: OWL 1.1
>Subject: ISSUE-31 Proposal to resolve
>Isn't this issue moot now that we have defined our own OWL detatype
>restriction syntax?
>This being the case we could close the issue without any action.

Neither do I really understand what ISSUE-31 is about, nor do I understand
why having own OWL datatypes (such as owl:real?) makes this issue moot. Can
anyone please provide a short explanation of ISSUE-31?


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 20:06:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC