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

Re: ISSUE-31 Proposal to resolve

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>
Message-Id: <1215609726.23047.35.camel@msmith-laptop-wired.int.clarkparsia.com>

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

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