- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 08:22:49 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 23 May 2009, at 05:28, Ivan Herman wrote: > One step further: why having this thing in the rdf namespace? I must > admit I was always a bit uneasy about using the rdf namespace for > that in the past, but I accepted. But it started as a 'thing' that > seemed to be a common need for RIF and OWL, and we may want to keep > it that way. > > It could be in the OWL or the RIF namespace or has a namespace of > its own. To echo your words, I would not go there. Fiddle as little as possible. I would oppose a new namespace. Putting in either rif or OWL would be arbitrary (though I wouldn't, myself, mind the OWL one :)). As you pointed out, putting it in XSD is a non-starter. Let the long international nightmare end! :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 07:23:23 UTC