Fwd: Auto: public-owl-comments@w3.org autoreply

Email sent to public-owl-comments@w3.org currently elicits and automatic reply stating that "You should receive a response from the Working Group with a few weeks". This is not appropriate given that the working group closed several years ago. Is there any way to change the message in the automatic reply?


Begin forwarded message:

> From: W3C Postmaster <postmaster@w3.org>
> Subject: Auto: public-owl-comments@w3.org autoreply
> Date: 5 August 2014 11:48:55 BST
> To: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
> 
> Thank you for your comments on OWL. You should receive a response from the Working Group with a few weeks.
> 
> ----- original message: ----------------------------------------------
>> From horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk Tue Aug 05 10:48:55 2014
> Received: from relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.166])
> 	by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
> 	id 1XEcIX-00080T-UT
> 	for public-owl-comments@w3.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:48:55 +0000
> Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207])
> 	by relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
> 	id 1XEcI5-0004JO-r7; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100
> Received: from dhcp3-nat.cs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.88.5] helo=[192.168.18.104])
> 	by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
> 	(Exim 4.69)
> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
> 	id 1XEcI5-0005s1-3g; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
> Subject: Re: issue in OWL SS&FS and bug in mapping from RDF graphs
> From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
> In-Reply-To: <B9A8436B-1520-4D8B-BB1C-FF1F5ED0CBC3@nuance.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:47:23 +0100
> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org,
> Boris Motik <boris.motik@cs.ox.ac.uk>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Message-Id: <4F5D44A1-0307-4924-A197-99D63ABFD798@cs.man.ac.uk>
> References: <B9A8436B-1520-4D8B-BB1C-FF1F5ED0CBC3@nuance.com>
> To: Peter Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>,
> Michael Wessel <wessel@racer-systems.com>
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
> X-Oxford-Username: coml0201
> Received-SPF: none client-ip=163.1.2.166; envelope-from=horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk; helo=relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk
> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.300, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
> X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XEcIX-00080T-UT 9e687837c2c7a2fc39f198b506c89403
> 
> Dear Peter and Michael,
> 
> Thanks for highlighting these issues. I finally got around to adding it =
> to the list of errata (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL_Errata).=20
> 
> Regards,
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 Apr 2014, at 22:09, "Patel-Schneider, Peter" =
> <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com> wrote:
> 
>> The OWL Structural Specification and Function-Style Syntax states for =
> most syntactic constructs with an arbitrary number of arguments that =
> these arguments are considered to be a set under structural similarity.
>> =20
>> This causes no problems for many of these syntactic constructs but =
> there are a few where removing duplicates changes the meaning of the =
> construct.
>> =20
>> For example, according to the wording in section 9.1.3 of SS&FS
>> =20
>> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:foo ex:bar )
>> =20
>> implies that ex:foo is empty, which is very different from=20
>> =20
>> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:bar )
>> =20
>> It would not be easy to simply change these constructs to take =
> multisets because the OWL API would have to be changed.
>> =20
>> =20
>> I propose the following fix:
>> =20
>> 1/ The functional-style syntax requires that the arguments to =
> DisjointClasses, DisjointObjectProperties, DisjointDataProperties, and =
> DifferentIndividuals and all but the first argument to DisjointUnion all =
> be structurally different.
>> =20
>> 2/ When converting the triple x owl:disjointWith y where x and y are =
> structurally similar the axiom SubClassOf( CE(x) owl:Nothing ) is =
> produced.
>> =20
>> =20
>> This is not an ideal fix by any means, but a better fix would require =
> much more significant changes in deployed software.
>> =20
>> =20
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> =20
>> =20
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:57:54 UTC