- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:39:28 -0400
- To: <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, <evren@clarkparsia.com>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:32:59 -0500 > >> I disagree. The Mapping to RDF document indicates how OWL tools should >> translate between the Functional Syntax and RDF Graphs (which is to >> leave literals alone, as is appropriate). The rdf:text document says >> what should be done when moving RDF Graphs around (which is to replace >> rdf:text literals with plain literals). These are two different >> things. > > One of the options [1] being discussed (and the one I think Boris is > advocating [2]) is to take all this out of rdf:text. If that happens, > would that change your mind? > > -- Sandro > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0083 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0080 Well if it is all out of rdf:text then there is nothing to be said, so, sure, I would then be willing to have that all said in our documents. :-) peter
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 00:39:42 UTC