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

Re: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:50:22 +0100
Message-Id: <69BB8506-E07D-4947-93BC-9739B120A905@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Christine Golbreich" <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
To: "Barclay, Daniel" <daniel@fgm.com>
I appreciate that checking all these corrections is rather onerous.  
Both Christine and I did check them, but of course mistakes can  
always be made.

I would be happy for you to respond as you suggest, and we will  
continue trying to fix any (re-) reported problems, but this will  
become more difficult as the spec (hopefully) progresses to PR and  
Rec. Note, however, that this is a user facing documents, so (minor)  
errors are less serious than they would be in the core specification.

Thanks,
Ian


On 2 Sep 2009, at 17:38, Barclay, Daniel wrote:

> Christine Golbreich wrote:
> > Dear Daniel,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment
> >      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Aug/0022.html>
> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> >
> > We appreciate your careful reading of the document, and have made  
> the
> > necessary corrections.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don't have time to check all those comments.
>
> Can I just declare that I assume the response was satisfactory (and  
> if in
> a future draft I notice that a problem remains I just have to re- 
> report it)?
>
> Daniel
> --
> (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft  
> Exchange.) [F]
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 16:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 September 2009 16:51:28 GMT