- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:35:48 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Feb 2009, at 06:45, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > I am not suggesting forbidding all datatypes. I am suggesting it is > not a good idea to let random people define semantics for datatypes > that are likely to get standardized, or at a minimum warn that a > future working group is likely to tromple on them. At least within the > W3 space. If we hadn't had this be an issue with datatype support - a > legacy of the choice (or lack) in OWL 1 - an actual case where this > hurts, I wouldn't bring this up. We are interested in promoting > interoperability and this is along the lines of doing so. > > We already prevent people, at least in DL, from using terms from the > rdf(s), xsd, and owl namespaces. I still don't understand why this phrase doesn't satisfy your wishes. Or does it? Is this comment mooted? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 07:36:22 UTC