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

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

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:30:20 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902160730g328c4300jd65483bae9819f4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
2009/2/16 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I agree that referring to ORACLE is not really appropriate.


I simply suggested this to be even more convincing in pointing to concrete
examples of implementor(s) involved in the design.  I agree that it is not
the best though and present response is fine for me like it.

-- 
Christine
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 15:30:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 February 2009 15:30:58 GMT