- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:31:20 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As I have stated in the past, our experiment with letting implementations define xml schema datatypes in OWL 1 was a failure. That point of view is nothing new - I've stated it in the past. I think we should be clearly setting expectations that standardizing OWL behavior in the W3C space is to be managed within the W3C process. We already have restrictions to this effect in Syntax. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#IRIs_and_Namespaces There are a variety of ways of accomplishing this goal and I'm open to suggestions on how to go about doing this. -Alan On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 15:31:56 UTC