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: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:00:02 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDAAF@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> We have a lightweight process for editorial issues, and I am
>>> advocating that this should be used for this issue.
>>> Jeremy
>> Ah, but I believe that this isn't applicable in this case, since there
>> exist an OWL 2 Full document at the moment.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>We have already agreed that it is a delta on the S&AS section 5, so it
>seems analagous to the problems related to editorial issues in the
>member submission docs.

I'm indifferent about the process.

However, I have just revised the Wiki page to more explicitly show the problem 
and the repair:


This simulates the ACTION which I would have performed on an OWL 2 Full 
working draft, so you might think that this is sufficient to CLOSE this 
presumably EDITORIAL ISSUE as RESOLVED (with a note to the chairs). :-)

But /I/ won't do this... :)


Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 15:12:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC