- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:02:14 +0000
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ianh@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 28 Jan 2009, at 20:56, Christine Golbreich wrote: > In the column "Affected" of the Wiki page for LC comments, would it > possible to mention the *different* docs affected when several ? > It would also be very helpful for managing non LC docs affected to > put pointers to them, for example within brackets to distinguish > them from LC docs. > > For example, [6] affected the Syntax, RDF-Based Sem docs, and also > NF& R (editorial fix), see [1] for summary First, it's not relevant to record that it affect non-LC docs. Second, I don't see how it affect RDF-Based semantics. Finally, this email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0073.html just don't understand the issue. JH1 says nothing about whether keys operate over the active or the entire ___domain, thus nothing about naming. Can we keep focused? By the way, now that I reread it, I see that the changes to NF&R fail to meet Jim's expressed needs. It wasn't *what* the semantics were, but *why*. As I've pointed out before, the NF&R document currently focuses too much on restating *what* the features are at the expense of *why*, which is, after all, the value add. Can we discuss this in a telecon? Or even on list? I've gotten no response from the editors on this point. It's not clear to me that they are tracking my comments. (E.g., I completed an action *eons* ago to show how I would like the "Use cases" to be presented. I've seen no changes nor any response on that front.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 20:02:50 UTC