Re: WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement

Jim Hendler wrote:

> >>  Chair-neutrality very much ON
> >>                              --
> >>
> >>  Gentlemen - may I remind you both that the working group spent a
> >>  great deal of time discussing this issue early in its existence, it
> >>  reached a number of resolutions at the Amsterdam face to face on this
> >>  issue, and has been proceeding quite well based on those resolutions.
> >>  Whether you think we are too vested in RDF, or not enough vested, is
> >>  immaterial -- we reached our decisions and should live with them.
> >>
> >>  I see no reason to revisit or reopen any of those resolutions at this
> >>  time, and urge you to have this important discussion on rdf-logic or
> >>  other venue, but please not where it takes time from the complex work
> >>  ahead still facing our WG.
> >

To be clear, I am not suggesting that OWL drop RDF in the least.

I am suggesting, however, that _how RDF handles datatypes_ (which is an open
issue for RDFCore) is critical for OWL.

RDFCore has asked for input regarding how datatyping is being designed to
work. This affects us and we ought to give this some consideration, either
as a WG or individually to www-rdf-logic/www-rdf-comments


Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 13:15:41 UTC