W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

quoting conventions in email

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:18:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071105.081816.107765761.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

I'm not keen on the quoting convention used in the quoted message, which
I have slightly modified to not really obscure the identities of the
parties involved.  From the message I find it hard to find out who wrote
the initial portions and when, particularly when the message is then
included in other replies, and I have problems with determining the
boundaries of the response.  Perhaps we need some guidelines on
responding to messages, although I'm not keen on that either!

peter



From: XX
Subject: RE: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:07:07 -0500

> Or a standard way for reasoners to save an ontology and all entailments? If the
> latter, do you mean to define a set of annotation properties so that inferred
> entailments can be annotated in some way? Or do you mean this last + the
> specific format for what the annotation properties contain.
> 
> [XX] I mean the last + specific format for what the annotation properties
> contain.
> 
> If this is viewed as too broad a scope, then as Jim suggested, we could just
> have these things as annotation strings to start with
> 
>  
> 
> When you say that only some entailments and proofs need be standardized, do you
> mean you would be satisfied with nothing in the rest of the cases?
> 
> [XX] I guess so, because there would be no choice.  And the reason I suggested
> that commonly understood and used proof patterns be standardized is to limit he
> scope of the work.
> 
>  
> 
> ---XX
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 13:29:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT