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

Re: Draft response to LC comment 46

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:47:12 +0000
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5A4610A0-2B7F-48F5-8B6B-36192D999D4C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 19 Feb 2009, at 10:06, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2009, at 09:54, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>> Uli,
>>
>> I must admit I lost track of this issue after a while. However, the
>> Functional Syntax document does _not_ include any reference to the  
>> Data
>> Range extension as being 'feature at risk'.
>
> Indeed, we decided that the "hook" part is *not* at risk, after a  
> lot of contention! The rest may or may not be published as a  
> *separate* recommendation or note.
>

sorry, I was unsure about how much "procedural, W3C specific" detail I  
should mention, which I was afraid that a person from outside wouldn't  
understand...of course, I should have phrased it more carefully...I  
will rephrase.

Cheers, Uli

>> As such, unless a major
>> change, I do not think that this feature would be added to the main
>> document, that would clearly go way beyond Last Call...
>
> Yes.
>
>> My recollection (and I may be wrong) is that [1] might be published  
>> as a
>> separate WG note
>
> We haven't formally decided on the final disposition.
>
>> that can then be implemented, as an additional feature,
>> by OWL 2 tools. But that is a different statement.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Again, I may have missed something.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 17:47:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 February 2009 17:47:43 GMT