- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
There is more information available on two of the LC Comments that have negative responses than is pointed directly to from the agenda. 1/ Last call comment 47 concerning functional properties for keys, with negative reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0014.html Aside from the mentioned http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0152.html at least the following messages have relevant, non-duplicated content http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0065.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0070.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0077.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0078.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0082.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0102.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0153.html 2/ Last call comment 54 concerning only one exchange syntax with reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0000.html Aside from Sandro's mentioned message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0148.html at least the following messages have relevant, non-duplicated content http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0149.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0172.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0176.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0170.html peter
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 19:01:19 UTC