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

Re: Column Affected documents

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:02:14 +0000
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ianh@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1BC0D652-7B5F-4BA1-8F1F-7963839449BC@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>

On 28 Jan 2009, at 20:56, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> In the column "Affected" of the Wiki page for LC comments, would it  
> possible to mention the *different* docs affected when several ?
> It would also be very helpful for managing non LC docs affected to  
> put pointers to them, for example within brackets to distinguish  
> them from LC docs.
> For example,  [6] affected the Syntax, RDF-Based Sem docs, and also  
> NF& R (editorial fix),  see [1] for summary

First, it's not relevant to record that it affect non-LC docs.

Second, I don't see how it affect RDF-Based semantics.

Finally, this email
just don't understand the issue. JH1 says nothing about whether keys  
operate over the active or the entire domain, thus nothing about naming.

Can we keep focused?

By the way, now that I reread it, I see that the changes to NF&R fail  
to meet Jim's expressed needs. It wasn't *what* the semantics were,  
but *why*.

As I've pointed out before, the NF&R document currently focuses too  
much on restating *what* the features are at the expense of *why*,  
which is, after all, the value add.

Can we discuss this in a telecon? Or even on list? I've gotten no  
response from the editors on this point. It's not clear to me that  
they are tracking my comments.

(E.g., I completed an action *eons* ago to show how I would like the  
"Use cases" to be presented. I've seen no changes nor any response on  
that front.)

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 20:02:50 UTC

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