Re: notes from OWL and RIF datatype coordination meeting

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