- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:44:54 +0000
- To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I've rewritten the response to JH1 which, aside from being able to be
read as insulting out of context, is replying to the *discussion*
thread, not the *comment* :(
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1>
I can only apologize again for teh suck.
For convenience, it is inlined below.
Cheers,
Bijan.
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Jim Hendler
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your comment
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/
2009Jan/0004.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
In subsequent discussion, it seems that you've agreed that the way
keys interact with classes (i.e., the class is additional check, not
something to be inferred) has merit but that the documentation should
more clearly indicate that merit. See your message:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/
0055.html>
To this end, we've followed your suggestion and added a couple of
sentences to the first paragraph of
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Keys>
which we hope will make things clear.
Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the
rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion
in the Primer. The working group will contact you when they reach
last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns.
This response supercedes any prior response.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-
comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your
acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied
with the working group's response to your comment.
Regards,
Bijan Parsia
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 12:41:23 UTC