W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > August 2004

RE: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:31:49 -0700
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05241229@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <Motik@fzi.de>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>

One reasonable process is:
* there is an official person/email that one should send notifications
of errata to -and-
* there is a convenient and relatively obvious way for people to
discover who/where to send errata information to.

Some of this may already be in place. SWBPD is not the errata contact
focal, and Peter apparently did not know for sure where to send the


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:56 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Motik@fzi.de; public-swbp-wg@w3.org;
Subject: RE: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 19:16, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> It seems to me that minimally, there should be a summary of known
> errors/bugs/problems with OWL that is pointed to in a clear obvious
> (i.e. hard to miss) manner in the official OWL document pages. This
> current problem would go on that list.
> If there is no mechanism for this to occur, it seems like an

We maintain errata for the Recommendations...

but we don't promise to maintain WG Notes. Again, from the status

> "The authors welcome comments on this document, but does not guarantee
> reply or any further action. [...] no commitment is made by the W3C,
> any of its members, regarding future updates."
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-owl-xmlsyntax-20030611/

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:32:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC