Re: A thought on fragments and rec-track

Uli Sattler wrote:
> 
> On 15 Feb 2008, at 10:27, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>>
>> Carsten Lutz wrote:
>>>  And it should also be said that a lot of input from 1)
>>> went into the original proposal of OWL 1.1 that the WG started off
>>> with.
>>
>> I remain frustrated that this input has not been carried forward in a 
>> use case and requirements document. As is, it is a private mantra 
>> amongst some in the group that the OWL 1.1 design is based on real use 
>> cases - but there appears to be no easily accesible audit trail that 
>> exposes that.
> 
> hm, we have definitely not kept them secret/private but desribed them in 
> various papers.

I was not trying to suggest they were secret - more that the audit trail 
of how the current design relates to the use cases, and what the use 
cases are, could be more transparent.

> Anyway, we could easily move some of our QCR and 
> subproperty chains use cases/stories/work around design patterns into a 
> wiki page...would this help? Cheers, Uli

I would find that helpful.




Jeremy