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

Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090215.081850.266404256.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:12:23 +0100

> Seems good, specially concerning the actual role of users and 'implementors'
> in the OWL 2 Profiles and in particular for RL where, making implementations
> on top of rule extended DBMS possible, e.g. ORACLE, is clear. Perhaps point
> to a concrete example ?

A concrete example of what?  I'm not sure that explicitly mentioning
ORACLE in the response is the best approach.

> Given the sentence in Lilly's comment "... in particular, identifying
> different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic background. ..."
> it might be welcome to add that profile checkers* are on the way that will
> offer such functionality and allow them for checking just as they did

I added a sentence about profile checking to the response,


> Christine
> * as pointed out by
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0035.html

Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 13:19:13 UTC

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