Re: ISSUE OWL DL syntax [was: Re: WebOnt telecon 13 March: minutes]

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 10:19, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> wrote:
> [..]
> > 2.1 ISSUE 5.26 OWL DL Syntax
> > 
> > Context:
> >
> > 
> > PROPOSAL to RESOLVE [consensus from editors meetings]:
> >
> > 
> > RESOLUTION: unanimously accepted, minus points F.1, B.1 and B.2.
> > This does not close the issue.
> The minutes nor the log tells give info about the rationale for leaving 
> out B1 B2 and F1. I'll put them on this week's agenda, but a message 
> from someone involved in the telecon discussion on the status of these 
> points would be very welcome.

As I recall, those present didn't feel that B1 and B2 were
clearly worth the trouble. I gather recent drafts of S&AS
describe a design that requires repeating, rather than sharing,
big chunks of triple-syntax in some cases. The main proponent
seemed to be Jeremy, but he wasn't there.

But neither did we feel we had sufficient evidence to
decide that B1 and B2 were not the way to go. So
we didn't close the issue.

Re F.1, there was a lot of hesitation to invest further
in owl:DataRange. There was a proposal to strike it
altogether, in fact...

Proposed simplification of datatype expressions  
Ian Horrocks (Thu, Mar 13 2003)

The proposal came out shortly before the telcon,
so we weren't ready to decide on it.

But it has had some discussion since then, I see.

> Guus
> [..]
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:03:37 UTC