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

Re: review of Document Overview

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:38:33 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: cgolbrei@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <27794.1238783913@ubehebe>

> 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.

I can't figure out what difference it really makes whether it's
considered normative, so, whatever.

      -- Sandro


> 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:
> >>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 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. =A0If I were an OWL 2 user, I would insist the text actua=
> lly be
> >> normative, too. =A0(I guess there's no problem with a little normati=
> ve
> >> text in NF&R.)
> > =
> 
> > =
> 
> >> =A0 =A0-- Sandro
> >>
> >>
> > =
> 
> > =
> 
> > -- =
> 
> > Christine
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 18:38:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 April 2009 18:38:42 GMT