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

Re: Throw it away!

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:40:05 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902241040n16366618y9c0b429fe49bf903@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
2009/2/24 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>:
> On 24 Feb 2009, at 18:17, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>> 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 ?
> It was a tongue and cheek remark about throwing away the use cases as a
> whole (a position I've advocated for a while).

Ah! Oxford language is easier for some of us :-)

Members of the UFDTF and of the WG asked for keeping UCS as Appendix.
Along with your action you advocated to have pointers to OWLED instead
Seeems that there has been today a discussion on that as well
BTW the specific concerned UCs related to N-ary came from Manchester,
if I remember correctly.

> I support NF&R and N-ary.
> Sorry for the confusion.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:40:46 UTC

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