- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:18:30 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Bijan, I don't undersand what "it" refers to below in "it's futile". The decisions to support (or not support) a datatype in the RIF discussions has typically been grounded in the implementation burden vs. utility tradeoff. -Chris Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 22 Jan 2009, at 15:41, Chris Welty wrote: > >> </chair> >> Personally (but I believe I am representing a wider community, and >> certainly several folks at IBM I've conversed with), I intended the >> statement to be more general than just compatibility between OWL and >> RIF through OWL RL. >> >> I think there should be one set of xsd's for the semantic web. >> Stepping back from RIF and OWL, it seems ridiculous to me that each >> would maintain a different set. > > Does this include owl:rational? Or only the additional string types? > I.e., literally *xsd* or types in general. If types in general then I > think it's futile since new types are coming down the line (i.e., > quantity types). > > If the latter, why not support them? Esp. since they are all definable > anyway (being, essentially, range restrictions). > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 23:19:16 UTC