- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:39:54 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 09:32, Dave Beckett wrote: > On 16 Jun 2003 22:43:18 -0500 > Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: [...] > > Please let us know if you find this response satisfactory. > > > No I do not. I see. As you may be aware, the Working Group has requested CR status, noting your oustanding dissent http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/rqim.html $Revision: 1.41 $ of $Date: 2003/07/30 23:09:12 $ Regarding this part of your message... > Maybe you do have multiple interoperable implementations of the mapping > from OWL's concrete syntax (RDF triples) to OWL's abstract syntax and I > am just unaware of them. If that is the case, then I would be more satisfied. The WG has identified part of what makes the mapping complicated (constraints that rule out structure sharing, cycles), discussed a way to remove those constraints, and asked that this part of the spec be designated "at risk" during CR. We have also accepted an exit criterion to exhibit "two owl syntax checkers passing all tests". The Director is interested to know if moving to CR this way would be a satisfactory response to your comments. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 16:39:59 UTC