- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:44:51 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 11:24 AM -0600 12/17/02, Dan Connolly wrote: >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. We don't yet have minutes from last week's minutes, but my personal notes read that we didn't resolve the issue - we discussed it, decided to do the below, and then went on without resolving the details. If I'm wrong, please let me know what we decided about these issues. Otherwise, we need a consensus call on the record. > >> >> 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. apologies, I missed that > >> 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/ -- 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 12:45:28 UTC