Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54

From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:12:03 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:37:40 -0400
> 
>>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 (was draft responses for 
>>> LC comment FH3/29)
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:19:19 +0100
>>> 
>>> > Based on the email discussion yesterday I have made a draft for a
>>> > possible (separate) answer to Jan:
>>> > 
>>> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR8-2
>>> > 
>>> > I hope this summarizes the discussion.
>> 
>> Can we just remove the long paragraph which mentions TriX?  I think I
>> already made the case for why its argument is false, but I'll repeat it
>> if someone wants.
> 
> Please do so.  I don't remember anyone falsifying the claim that triple
> serialisations of OWL ontologies are not unfriendly to XML tools.
  		    		       ///
OOPS

>> I'd also take out "genuine" and the remaining "extremely".
> 
> Fine.
> 
>> With those changes, I think it's okay.
>> 
>>      -- Sandro
> 
> peter

peter