- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:53:59 -0400
- To: <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I went in and upgraded the third point of the response to talk about another reason for including owl:real, namely modelling hygene. I also put in more about the mess in RDF wrt empty lexical spaces and added a point that the WG would be prepared to make the lexical space of owl:real the same as the one for owl:rational, even though it is a slight extra burden, as long as that is the sole remaining problem with owl:real. Unfortunately timing is going to be very tricky here. The Working Group will probably have to vote to change the definition of owl:real in this way if that is what ends up being the case. Someone should socialize this response with Jeremy to see if it helps at all. The other negative point is that it ties owl:real and owl:rational together and probably requires a change to the "At Risk" sections. peter
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 23:53:44 UTC