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

Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:18:43 +0100
To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Message-Id: <89168BC9-B062-4A39-BFAF-BA8CC2D42287@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 13 May 2009, at 22:10, Sebastian Rudolph wrote:

> OK, there seem to be two irreconcilable opinions here, one strongly  
> in favour of conceiving a class as a "concept extension set" and one  
> heavily against it. I guess my attempt of satisfying both sides by  
> some paraphrasing has failed... :S
> In triggering Richard to draft the below text suggestion I am even  
> afraid to have made things worse... while I could have lived with  
> "extension set", this isn't bearable even from my - well -  
> diplomatic point of view.

Indeed.

> Bijan, you want to give it a try and draft a response-response- 
> response? Or (forgive my ignorance, I'm just the newby...) what  
> exactly is the official procedure in this case?

We can try to get him to accept our resolution (not to include crazy  
talk in the primer). Or we can say, "Oh well, we'll let the director  
know". Frankly, I'm not so very inclined to argue with him and  
furthermore, I don't see that satisfying him has much chance of  
improving the spec. So, if Sandro is ok with it, I would suggest  
leaving matters as they stand with perhaps a short message saying,  
"Sorry, but we won't accept that text."

It's a freaking editorial point, for crying out loud!

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC