W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:21:46 +0100
Message-ID: <480C86DA.2020902@hpl.hp.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
> ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> 


I *think* this is editorial. Aren't these just minor typos in which the 
appropriate constraints on quantifiers or bounds on some of the 
variables were missing? And isn't there one obviously correct answer, 
and a number of obviously incorrect answers?

There are several such errors in S&AS but none which I feel merits WG 
attention.


There is no obligation to preserve backward compatibility with clear 
errors. [There are no *obvious* errors in OWL Full, because nothing is 
obvious in such a complex system - but there are errors that are clear 
once they are articulated]

Michael,

do you disagree with such an assessment - i.e. do I need to seriously 
understand this problem?

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 12:22:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 April 2008 12:22:34 GMT