Re: [LC response] To SWD WG

Ian,

Thanks for the quick response. We'll do our best to review the second set of 
docs quickly.

Best,
Guus


Ian Horrocks wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2009, at 16:01, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> Dear SWD WG,
>>> We sent you a response [1] to your comment [2] on the OWL 2 Web 
>>> Ontology Language last call drafts, but to date we do not appear to 
>>> have received any reply. If we don't hear from you we will assume 
>>> that you are satisfied with the working group's response to your 
>>> comment.
>>
>> Ian,
>>
>> Sorry for our delayed response. Thanks a lot for the way in which the 
>> OWL WG has taken our comments into account. In general, we are happy 
>> with your responses. We would like to have to have a chance to see the 
>> new documents before we give an official OK.
> 
> As you probably know, we will shortly (I hope) publish a 2nd set of Last 
> Call Working Drafts -- I will let you know when they are published. You 
> are, of course, very welcome to look at and comment on them.
> 
>>
>> One point remains: we still feel it would be very appropriate if  the 
>> "New Features & Rationale" document [1] would contain (also) RDF 
>> syntax, as this will be the document that existing RDF/OWL users (and 
>> thus SKOS users) will go to when they want to know what's new in OWL 2.
> 
> This is already in progress -- see [1].
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> Best,
>> Guus
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-new-features-20081202/
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ian Horrocks
>>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>> [1] 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0060.html 
>>>
>>> [2] 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html<schreiber.vcf> 
>>>
>