- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:57:27 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 24 May 2009, at 10:52, Ivan Herman wrote: > Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >> However, and this is a very big caveat, I really don't want the >> design >> of RDF changed in response to this new datatype, as has been >> proposed. >> If having the datatype in the rdf namespace requires a design change, >> then I think that it would be much better to just have an OWL >> datatype >> for this purpose. >> > > I see in the poll that I am in minority here:-( but I have the > impression that the whole discussion was largely started by the fact > that we introduced something in the RDF namespace and therefore a > number > of people considered this (whether right or wrong) as something having > an effect on RDF design. Ie, I still believe we should stay away from > the RDF namespace but, as we seem to say in the group, I will not lie > down the road over this:-) If this would stop the maddness, then I'm fine with it being in the OWL namespace or the RDFS namespace. I'd prefer not the RIF namespace because that means a new namespace for me to deal with. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 09:58:07 UTC