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

Re: ACTION-268

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:54:32 +0000
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15FBE077-449E-48AE-870F-42F02AB6E219@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>

On 21 Jan 2009, at 23:33, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
> I don't understand this as a reply to my message or my action.
>
> nothing to do with you.
> the goal was to synthetize/homogenize  the documentation for the  
> reply to JH1 comment

Then perhaps you should start a new thread.

[snip]
>> 2)
>> - the NF&R has already asserted  that a  haskey axiom only concerns  
>> named instances of a class C as well:
>> "A HasKey axiom states that each named instance of a class is  
>> uniquely identified by a (data or object) property or a set of  
>> properties"
>> - The example also stresses that a haskey axiom does not state that  
>> each instance of the class C has at least one value for the key  
>> property
>> - As proposed at last TC, I have now extended the comment of the  
>> example in adding the sentence "The inference that each patient who  
>> has a a:hasWaitingListN belongs to the class a:RegisteredPatient  
>> cannot be drawn "
>> so as to make it clear that the inference of belonging to the class  
>> cannot be drawn, which was, if I remember correctly, the initial  
>> point of the discussion.
>>
>> Again, nothing to do with my action.
>>
>> However, it misses the point. The commenter understood the  
>> semantics, just didn't see the rationale. The point of putting  
>> something in the NF&R is to, well, you know, document the rationale.
>>
> not only, an introduction that helps to grasp the new features as well
[snip]

First, my point was local and related to the reply to Jim. In the  
telecon, the reason I though we should put the rationale for this  
feature into the new features and rationales document is because  
that's where rationales *go*.

Second, I feel that "NF&R" shouldn't be an introduction to the new  
features. That's scope creep. See my recent email for more on this.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 23:55:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 January 2009 23:55:09 GMT