On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 16 Mar 2009, at 06:52, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> Hi Boris, >> >> You wrote; >> >>> Thus, even if someone might thing that the definitions from XML Schema >>> are odd >>> or broken, the brokenness is not in our court, and we have undertaken >>> measures >>> to fix it (via examples). Should anyone think that this brokenness >>> absolutely >>> must be corrected, probably the best course of action would be to submit >>> a LC >>> comment to the XML Schema WG. >> >> I disagree. Broken is broken and I think this brokenness absolutely >> must be corrected. If you think that we should work this out with the >> XML Schema group, that may be an option, but it's may be better to not >> add a dependency on an issue that we're not certain we can resolve and >> instead fix it so that it's not broken in OWL. > > Regardless of that, it isn't broken, so the point is moot. > > You may not like it, which is fine. But there's nothing technically wrong > with it, as I have pointed out. Your arguments are not persuasive. -AlanReceived on Monday, 16 March 2009 09:10:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 March 2009 09:10:37 GMT