- From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:33 -0800
- To: Collin <collin@seu.edu.cn>
- Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Thanks; I've just fixed that in our 1.1 release file. We aren't currently planning to make any more fixes in 1.0, since 1.1 is planned to come out pretty soon. - David Collin wrote: > And there seems to have a trivial typo error in the 1.0 version of Process.owl. > > "rdfs:label" was written to be "rdf:label" in the comment for IOPE. :-) > > Cheers, > Collin > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org >>[mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of >>Bijan Parsia >>Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:05 PM >>To: Florian Probst >>Cc: OWL-S >>Subject: Re: OWL-S in protege? >> >> >> >>On Jan 27, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Florian Probst wrote: >> >> >>>hi, >>>I am searching for reasons and explanations why >> >>most of the OWL-S >> >>>examples provided on the net can not be >> >>validated with an OWL >> >>>validator. >> > > [snip]
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2004 10:53:54 UTC