- From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:22:06 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 21:18 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > > Isn't this issue moot now that we have defined our own OWL detatype > > restriction syntax? > > No. In fact, if you look at the body, quite the opposite (since it > was raised in light of already having the restriction syntax). I > believe, however, we had a proposal for the URIs (e.g., the daml+oil > solution). I don't know what happened afterwards. > > > This being the case we could close the issue without any action. > > There is a proposal on the table: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Syntax#Proposed_Datatype_Edit I agree that this issue is not mooted by the datatype restriction syntax. It has been sometime since the issue was discussed and I think interested parties have been focused elsewhere. I would prefer leaving the issue open and continuing to defer it as low priority until the more pressing datatype issues are resolved. -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 13:22:47 UTC