Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

On 8 May 2012, at 00:42, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Am 07.05.2012 12:42, schrieb Bijan Parsia:
>> On 7 May 2012, at 11:29, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 07.05.2012 00:19, schrieb Ian Horrocks:
[snip]
>>> I agree!
>> 
>> But, you know, who the heck cares about the spirit of some agreement?
> 
> Oops, sorry for having been so short on words - that's not what people generally expect from me and, certainly, I have more to say than simply agreeing to Ian. :-)
> 
> Fine, not talking about procedural stuff here, and also not mentioning (ok, I do) that I believe that it's not so easy to bring a working group happily back to work after 2 1/2 years,

I'll put aside whether that's strictly necessary or what it means exactly... :)

> there is still the question whether these three datatypes are technically appropriate for inclusion in OWL at all (whether in OWL 2, or OWL 2.1, or whatever).

Yes, thank you. That should be the first consideration.

> So here is the situation as I recall it:
> 
> First to say, it's not that these datatypes were simply forgotten to be considered, as some people seem to believe.

Sorry I can't go into detail right now (I hope at the end of the day), but let me just note that my point is that *if* there were a material change in XSD 1.1  (or a change in our understanding) that makes these *previously* rejected datatypes acceptable *then* it's reasonable to update the map.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 08:34:55 UTC