- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:05:41 -0400
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim Hendler wrote: > > > > > > >> Oh well. That's an artifact of the decision to use RDF, > >however we decided > >> >> to use RDF/XML at F2F 2. > >> > > >> >Sure this isn't a deal-breaker, but because of it, proposal #1 has the > >> >advantage of us not having to constantly answer the question "So tell me > >> >again why the contents of an ontology are described outside of the > >> ><Ontology> tag?" > >> > >> Not sure I understand, reopening decisions isn't to be taken lightly > >> > > > >I don't see it as reopening the decision. The decision is pretty vague, > >so I guess it comes down to a matter of interpretation. > > Sorry what part of > Resolved: XML/RDF will be the exchange format for OWL. > do you not understand? I was referring to the decision as recorded in the minutes from the F2F. Maybe that's not what you all decided, but I wasn't there so all I have to go on is what was recorded. I quote from [1]: RESOLVED: 1.that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform 2.some form of presentation syntax is requirement 3.RDF is underlying syntax Please see my recent message that explains why I think this decision does not exclude proposal #1 [2]. Jeff [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html#What:1 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0016.html
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 11:05:44 UTC