- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:50:45 -0500
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
All - I believe the following is a summary of where we stood at the end of last week's telecon, and what I propose to bring up at this week's as an issue closing: 1 - The group felt there should be an OWL MIME type - we had two choices: Application/owl+xml Application/owl+rdf+xml we had preferences for each, no "can't live" on either. 2 - The group felt that having the keyword for the language subsets (Lite, DL) in the mime-type might not be the right way to do it. Instead, it was suggested that we have another "extra logicial" tag for the ontology document that would specify the keyword. No specific name for this keyword was suggested, although I think someone said "owl:inferenceType" - i.e. <owl:ontology rdf:about=""> <owl:inferenceType>DL</owl:inferenceType> ... other extralogical stuff ... </owl:ontology> note: this assumes we want this to be an arbitrary string. Alternatively, we could make it have some logic attached and say it has to be owl:oneOf (Lite DL Full) 3 - upon closing of the issue, Jonathan will submit the requisite stuff to IETF for the MIME type I think we need to iron out the details on this ASAP so we can try to close this issue on Thursday - please send mail to list if you have opinions on: i. app/owl+xml vs app/owl+rdf+xml ii. name of the keyword for language subsets iii. whether langauge subset should be a string (which let's people invent arbitrary new ones) or a specific class (in which case we can limit to our three). thanks JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 10:51:16 UTC