- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:27:20 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Feb 2009, at 15:10, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > I'm not sure whether it does or not. In any case like it to be phrased > in a way that there isn't any doubt and would prefer that the > statement be more proximate to the other information about datatype > conformance. I don't see how you could be unsure. I oppose adding anything else on this point to the specs. FWIW, you consistently over and mis-state (IMHO) what the problem was and then propose overreactions. (For example, you tend to ignore the fact that the spec mentioned a bunch of datatypes as optional and didn't have a good picture of datatype extension *and* had an extremely impoverished set of required types *and* occurred in a situation where there were relatively few implementations and almost no institutions or community. None of these are true now.) The text you cited specifically does what you are asking for. The XSD namespace is reserved. That's all that needs or should be said. If you think there is a reading of that text that would produce a problematic outcome, please suggest it and we can see what wording would suffice. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:23:46 UTC