W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [LC response] To Umberto Straccia (1)

From: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:46:30 +0200
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <6AD4C3CC-E04E-48C0-AFA2-CF63F8A79646@isti.cnr.it>
Thanks for the quick response.
The response is consistent with the answer with the mentioned issue  
raised before and the (unsatisfactory) work-arounds are similar to  
what we thought about.

	-Umberto Straccia

On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Dear Umberto,
> Thank you for your comment
>    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Apr/0074.html 
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> While we appreciate the use case raised in your comment, we found  
> that the specification and technical difficulties of adding such a  
> feature at this time outweigh the benefits it would bring. The  
> working group has, therefore, decided to make no change to OWL 2 in  
> response to your comment.
> Please note that a similar issue was raised in the first last call  
> round and there is a more detailed discussion in that reply:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0063.html 
> >
> The work-arounds in that message are mostly relevant here as well.
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org 
> > (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment  
> please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working  
> group's response to your comment.
> Regards,
> Bijan Parsia
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:29 UTC