- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:32:29 -0600
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, Wraf development <rdf@uxn.nu>
Jonas Liljegren wrote: > > Reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Mar/0105.html > > And now some comments on this text about the datatype extension: > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/differences-daml+oil.html [...] > > This is achieved by maintaining a clear separation between instances > > of "object" classes (those defined using our ontology language) and > > instances of datatypes (defined using the XML Schema type > > system). [...] > > This solution is not in the spirit of RDF. Yes, it's far from ideal. [...] > The committee lists both Ora Lassila and Tim Berners-Lee. How can it > be that they haven't objected to this new version? I argued (with Tim) against splitting the domains; but tools like OILed require the split in order to do efficient reasoning, and while I eventually want to get beyond that requirement, the group agreed it's worth keeping for at least a little while longer; but we agreed to note that it's a stop-gap solution: [[[ RESOLVED: We will release an updated language release incorporating the current proposal, acknowledge the outstanding issues and concerns, and solicit feedback from the larger community. ]]] -- Joint Committee Minutes 20 February 2001 http://www.daml.org/committee/minutes/2001-02-20.html Ian, Frank, Peter, where is the acknowledgement that some folks in the group don't like the split? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2001 09:32:36 UTC