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

Re: Comments on NF&R

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:42:22 +0000
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5CDA61D7-892A-4114-949A-C235AC0A4509@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>

On 9 Feb 2009, at 23:26, Christine Golbreich wrote:

>> I never said it was. I said it was about WHY *this aspect* of the  
>> feature. The current text does not explain why this aspect of the  
>> feature (unlike the text added to the syntax). I provided text that  
>> explains why th,is aspect of the feature, but it was not  
>> incorporated in any way.
> Could you please summarize in one sentence what you would like to be  
> added ?

Sure. I think it should describe the use case of representing multiple  
databases/tables or versions thereof as classes and thus the need to  
be able to scope keys to classes.

See my earlier email where I explain this in more detail.

>  I may answer the rest of your email further point by point. But,  
> sometimes like now, I do not answer because  I think it's wiser,  
> otherwise it would never end and also bother everybody. Be sure that  
> I never ignore comments. I always take all comments into  
> consideration when relevant and constructive.

Uhm...but its not clear that you take my comments as relevant or  
constructive. Since you often don't respond and sometimes write as if  
I didn't make a comment (the email that started this thread is an  
example), I don't know whether you are just ignoring or actively  
dismissing my comments.

To just take one example, I had an action in November to describe how  
I would like the Use cases to be presented:
I discharged it

Now my proposal seems lost in the back versions. I've not wavered in  
what I prefer but we haven't settled this yet. I'm not saying that you  
have to agree, but it's clearly an issue, one raised in good faith, is  
relevant, and, I hope, constructive, even if wrong.

Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 23:43:03 UTC

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