Re: Proposed reply for O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional?

On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 12:16  PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
wrote:

> A while ago Bijan made a comment on ontology type triples.  I believe 
> that
> this comment has been addressed by one of yesterday's WG decisions.
>
> I thus propose the following reply:
>
> Thank you for your comment.  As it was received outside of the Last 
> Call
> review period it has not received the prompt attention it should have.

No problem. Wasn't meant as LC; just seeking clarification. As with the 
subsequent email.

> On 18 September 2003 the WebOnt Working Group decided (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0216.html) to
> make the O rdf:type owl:Ontology optional for anonymous ontologies.

Yes, I think that reconciles S&AS with Reference

> Changes to this effect have been made in the editor's draft of OWL 
> S&AS,
> available at http://www.bell-labs.com/usr/pfps/owl/semantics/
>
> Please reply to public-webont-comments@w3.org indicating whether you 
> think
> this is a satisfactory response to your commment.

It's satisfactory. Thanks.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.