Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

We're happy w/r/t the spec (in pertinent part) as it is.

Cheers,
Kendall

On Dec 5, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> [snip]
> 
>> Since we're hearing a pretty strong mixed opinion from the OWL implementers
>> on this list, are there other implementers that we can talk to to ask which
>> of these two approaches they'd prefer?
> 
> I talked to a couple of people at ISWC and also before at the DL
> workshop or when I visited other universities. Enrico is the only
> person I have talked to who is stongly against the current spec.
> Several people are for the way the current spec is defined and some
> seem to have no strong preference or a slight preference for one or
> the other. I assume we could organise a teleconf on this topic and
> invite OWL folks via the OWL mailing list to participate, but also the
> public working drafts are announced on the list and so far nobody saw
> the need to comment on this. Anyway, I am happy to do whatever can
> help to move forward with the spec.
> 
> Birte
> 
>> thanks,
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283520
>