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

Re: ACTION-280 completed

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:58:47 +0000
Message-Id: <9BE88844-6363-4DB1-B262-7DDFCCB45B11@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-wg Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:33, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Bijan,
> let me propose something else. I have a colleague at CWI who also  
> has a
> position at the VU so he may know whether this is really the issue.  
> I am
> happy to talk to him. How does that sound?

You certainly don't need my permission :) Go for it.

> My problem is that this issue seems to be so obviously a syntax one  
> that
> I just do not see where a person like Frank would see a problem  
> with it...

My impression was that they did it in a bit of a rush and in that  
case it's easy to have a brain fart. Furthermore, the treatment of  
blank nodes in the abstract syntax of the old document was *very*  
unclear (I spent a couple of years thinking they were disallowed :)).

But sure. Check away. Whatever you need to raise your comfort level  
is fine with me.

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 14:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC