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

Re: draft for JH1 (keys)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:53:58 +0000
Message-Id: <8847943E-7458-4B3A-8FDA-4839E429F25A@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 18:34, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> instead of
>
> "Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the  
> rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion  
> in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach  
> last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns"
> I suggest :
>
> Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of  
> hasKey feature in the Syntax,  a better explanation in the RDF-Based  
> Semantics, and more documentation in the NF&R. The rationale behind  
> this design is summarized in the NF&R. We will have also some  
> discussion in the primer

Nothing has changed since:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/1DE393A8-7809-4776-939E-4F05DAA73D9E@cs.manchester.ac.uk 
 >
with respect to this comment. So this revision is just inaccurate. I  
don't see how it's productive to simply repeat what has already been  
rebutted.

Personally, I don't see what the pressure is to get the NF&R updated  
to cover this before replying to the comment. Nothing about Jim's  
experience rides on it. Why are we spending *any* further time on it?

I suppose there's going to be some discussion off list, which is fine,  
I guess. But given the workload, I suggest that people try to be a bit  
more constructive.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:54:35 GMT