Re: Any use cases for untidy literals except long range datatyping?

At 09:00 PM 8/20/02 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>Are we closing off any important extensibility paths if we go for tidy 
>>literals?
>
>With regards to this last point, yes. DAML and OIL and probably OWL will 
>need the flexibility of allowing (semantically) untidy literals, and if we 
>forbid them then the DAML spec will need to be rewritten and OWL will 
>probably no longer base itself on RDF (or, an alternative scenario, the 
>Webont WG will split apart into two rival groups which will produce 
>incompatible standards. It is perilously close to this already.)

I didn't realize this.  I think it may be an important datum.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 09:57:51 UTC