- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:01:49 -0400
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Dear Jim, Now that, hopefully, the technical points you make in your comment have been addressed, I'd like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the working group, to apologize for our earlier handling of your response. We intended no offense, but understand how the message could be taken as such, and have taken steps to more carefully check responses we send out in the future. Sincerely, Alan Ruttenberg co-chair, OWL Working Group On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear Jim, > > Thank you for your comment > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0004.html> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > In subsequent discussion, our understanding is that you have agreed that the > way keys interact with classes (i.e., the class is additional check, not > something to be inferred) has merit but that the documentation should more > clearly indicate that merit. See your message: > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/0055.html> > > To this end, we have followed your suggestion and added a couple of > sentences to the first paragraph of > <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Keys> > which we hope makes things clear. > > This response supercedes any prior response. > > 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 Wednesday, 11 March 2009 17:02:31 UTC