- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 17 Dec 2002 11:24:59 -0600
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 09:50, Jim Hendler wrote: > 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: I believe we resolved the issue last week. Please let's not spend more telcon time on it. > > 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 believe that action was assigned to me. > 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 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 12:25:04 UTC