- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ISSUE-127 (narynotyet): documents contain bits of nary datatype but these are not yet in OWL 2 [editorial] Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:55:35 +0100 [...] > This issue rests on a mistake. The current (minimal) n-ary data > predicate support is an accepted part of the language. It was part of > the submission (and was always a part of OWL 1.1) and it was part of > the first working draft. What we have not decided as a working group > is whether we will elaborate that (minimal) support or remove it > altogether. At the moment, given the recent report from HP, I believe > there is *no* current expressed support in the WG for removing the > minimal support. Thus, this proposal, unless it expresses a new desire > on the part of the raiser (in which case it is misphrased), is doubly > mistaken. I agree with Bijan, the member submission included n-ary datatypes (but not exactly in a finished fashion). Given this, I propose that the issue be closed with no change. I also do not believe that there is a need to open any new issue related to datatypes, as ISSUE-5 is still open. > Cheers, > Bijan. peter
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:19:00 UTC