- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:56:49 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 9 Feb 2009, at 15:33, Sandro Hawke wrote: > This was an informal meeting, to advance understanding of the issues, > with no decisions, etc. So, these are more "notes" than "minutes". > > My sense of the outcomes: > - Alan and Jos will talk more to get details on some real problems > users will face if OWL follows the non-disjoint path I feel inclined to point out that there's sentiment inside the OWL WG to go disjoint: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-04#RIF1 You know, from me :) I was never too happy on this point in the first place. Boris, one of the main champions, has changed his mind based on implementation experience (in part). > - OWL will seriously consider dropping NCName, etc I'd like to know the rationale for dropping built-in derived types. I.e., both OWL, and I understand, RIF can define these types, so why not use the standard names for them? Just a hint, to get me started :) Implementations that didn't want to build them in could always add defined versions... > - RIF will seriously consider adopting owl:rational (and > owl:real* ?) Hurrah! You guys super rock! Go RIF GOOOOOO! Be rational! Stay real! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 15:53:21 UTC