- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:57:06 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 24 Feb 2009, at 06:50, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific > datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added > to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected). Why? I don't think I had that intention. > AFAIK, there is no > proscription against this and I would like to have there be. I'm not sure why this is useful. I'd rather implementations hashed out issues before hand. And for datatypes we've rejected...why not let implementations have them? A proscription that is ignored (and rightly so) is a bad proscription in my book. It's already clear from the spec that *anything* beyond the current set is a bit risky. Also, what if some other organization wanted to standardize the xml schema future types (e.g., oasis)? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 13:53:33 UTC