Re: LANG: owl:import - Two Proposals

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]:

    1.that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a
    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].



Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 11:05:44 UTC