Re: CR Exit Criteria

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider <
pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: CR Exit Criteria
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:04:44 -0500
>
> > On 21 May 2009, at 00:53, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> 1. Resolve dependencies on rdf:text (currently at Last Call) and XSD
> >>    1.1 Datatypes (currently at Candidate Recommendation).
> >>> or put rdf:text as risk as described in previous email
> >
> > We agreed to make it "at risk" in the spec, so we should mention it
> > here. I added "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be
> > removed from the OWL 2 specification."
>
> Umm, if rdf:text goes away OWL 2 needs something to replace it with, so
> I think that the wording should be something like
>
> "Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be replaced with a
> datatype with name owl:text that serves the same purpose.
> Implementations will be able to switch to owl:text by simply replacing
> occurences of rdf:text with owl:text."


There are other alternatives. At the moment, for instance, there is
discussion of using the name rdf:plainLiteral. I suggest something more
along the lines:

"Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be renamed, replaced, or
have technical details modified as a result of ongoing work of the joint
OWL/RIF working group determining its specification."

-Alan



>
>
> [...]
>
> > Ian
>
> peter
>
>