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

Re: Throw it away!

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:23:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090224.132333.266075078.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
Cc: bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
There was some discussion on removing two of the use cases from NF&R in
response to a LC comment.  The rationale would have been that the use
cases did not support any OWL 2 features (and thus would not have
satisfied the requirements in the abstract for NF&R).  However, it was
determined that they did support the hooks for n-ary datatypes (at
least) and thus that there was reason to keep these two use cases.

peter


From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Throw it away!
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:48 +0100

> 1) I'm looking at the log on IRC and see  that there has been  some
> discussions about the NF&R.
> Has the schedule for discusssion about non LC documents been modified
> ? Are you in advance ? late ?
> 
> 2) I see Bijan's comment "Throw it away!"
> and later : "The use cases right? I'm strongly against them"
> after Alan's:"The document is called "New Features and Rationale"
> 
> Since I was not on the phone, and it's clear from the record on IRC,
> could you please elicit what you were talking about and what "it"
> refers to "in through it away"?
> work on  N-ary? NF&R ? the comment ?
> 
> 3) I don't know if this discussion was related to N-ary or not.
> Concerning N-ary and related UCs, FYI I asked aothors of the technical
> spec whether I should leave it or not in the NF&R and was replied that
> I should leave it.
> " I guess that n-ary will indeed happen as a note, so there is
> probably no need to EdNotes in your document".
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christine
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:24:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:24:05 GMT