Fwd: OWL 2 SS&FSS spec. error - sect. 2.4

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Barclay, Daniel" <daniel@fgm.com>
> Date: 2 September 2009 16:45:31 BDT
> To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: OWL 2 SS&FSS spec. error - sect. 2.4
>
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> ...
> > I'm happy to make the change you suggest. The resulting sentence  
> would be:
> >
> > "By a slight abuse of terminology, a prefix name is often used to  
> refer
> > to the prefix IRI that is associated with the prefix name, ..."
> >
> > Please let me know if this is satisfactory. If so then I will  
> make the
> > change and send a formal response.
>
> Yes, that sounds good.
>
>
> > While writing, can I ask if changing the sentence about absolute  
> IRIs to:
> >
> > "Each IRI MUST be absolute (i.e., not relative)."
> >
> > would address the concern you mentioned in your other email (about
> > ambiguity in the meaning of absolute)?
>
> Yes, that seems to clarify it well.
>
>
>
>
> > Finally, can I also ask you to respond formally to the responses  
> to your
> > earlier comments that were sent by the WG [1], [2].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Aug/0025.html
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Aug/0033.html
>
> Yes, if you could please forward me copies of those web pages (or  
> of the
> messages) (so I can identify which ones you're referring to).
>
> My employer's firewall and IT support people block access to the
> _entirety_ of http://lists.w3.org just because some archived e-mail
> message contain malware.
>
>
>
>
> Daniel
> --
> (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft  
> Exchange.) [F]
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 09:23:31 UTC