- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:48:01 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 17:49:51 UTC
Just an additional issue, though Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] > > In order for OWL to be precisely defined we need to base our > specification on the mathematical properties of numbers, not the > properties of implementations. > Boris has reported major implementation issues regarding the current setting. This is independent of the RIF coordination issue. AFAIK, (and I may be wrong, sorry if that is the case) C&P also had implementation issues. I definitely had problem on the RL implementation side if I based it on an existing RDF environment. Ie, this may be one of those cases when implementation concerns may have to have a priority. As I said on the RIF/OWL call, I also have serious concerns with any RIF OWL incompatibilities, because there are applications that use both rule systems (ie, RIF in future, hopefully) and OWL at the same time. Those applications will have major issues. Ie: as far as I am concerned, it is not that clear cut... Cheers ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 17:49:51 UTC