- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:56:24 +0200
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, jasnell@gmail.com, public-vocabs@w3.org, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
OK folks, I think "that's a wrap". As far as I'm concerned we've gathered more than enough feedback here on the design choices, and this thread is straying into more general (and potentially neverending) discussion. For the sake of the strained inboxes of everyone on public-vocabs@w3.org I'd like to close out this thread now. General discussion of OWL semantics is welcomed by W3C on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/ (which otherwise is drowning in 'Call for Papers' postings and might appreciate some technical discussion). I expect it most likely schema.org will take the option of a new property, and most likely the relationship to rdf:type will be expressed with rdfs:subPropertyOf; I'd like confirmation from Peter that he can live with this, and we'll work out the documentation details in the public Wiki rather than huge mail threads. Thanks everyone for your advice and thoughts, Dan
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 06:57:02 UTC