- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:52:57 -0400
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote: > Boris Motik a écrit : >> >> [...] >> Note that this is *exactly* the same problem as the one we have with >> xsd:decimal >> and xsd:double; hence, I consider it really strange to use one solution >> for >> numerics but a completely different one for dates. > > I agree. And for consistency, it would be reasonable to adopt this change, > IMHO. > >> [...] >> - Nobody (such as RIF) can scorn us for going our way: we can always point >> to >> XML Schema and say "Here is the holy bible!" > > The Bible is all about interpretation ;-) Hello Antoine. I'd consider something of a failure if anything in our normative specification is subject to interpretation. Would you not agree that the bible is a rather bad example to follow if one is writing a specification? -Alan > > > Regards, > -- > Antoine Zimmermann > Postdoctoral researcher at: > Digital Enterprise Research Institute > National University of Ireland, Galway > IDA Business Park > Lower Dangan > Galway, Ireland > antoine.zimmermann@deri.org > http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 04:53:34 UTC