W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: review of Document Overview

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:38:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090403.043849.226749778.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Wait a minute here.

I'm against normative text in NF&R.  However, I don't think that any
text explaining the differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2 should be
normative.

peter



From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: review of Document Overview
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:08:49 +0200

> 2009/4/2 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>:
>>
> 
>>> > 3.2:
>>> >       Just put this stuff elsewhere (perhaps in Primer).
>>>
>>> I significantly shortened the whole of Section 3 and pointed to NF&R
>>> for detailed explanation/documentation.
>>>
>>> I also renamed it "Relationship to OWL 1" as this seems more
>>> appropriate and avoids the negative connotations of "differences".
>>
>> Very nice, except that we need a link explaining the "almost"s in
>> paragraph two to a place with text like Peter and I were crafting
>> yesterday.  If I were an OWL 2 user, I would insist the text actually be
>> normative, too.  (I guess there's no problem with a little normative
>> text in NF&R.)
> 
> Agree, as proposed, we'll put some like text in NF&R (as a whole or splitted)
> 
>>    -- Sandro
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christine
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 08:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 April 2009 08:37:01 GMT