W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Proposed reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:49:41 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1051192179.28479.1606.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 07:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html
> Date: 23 Apr 2003 09:30:06 -0500
> 
> > On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 07:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > I propose 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an
> > > 	XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to
> > > 	use user-defined XML Schema in OWL.
> > 
> > That looks good.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> > 
> 
> So should I respond?

I guess I should have been more clear...

It looks good to me as a WG member. I think this is
consistent with decisions
made by the WG; in particular, on issue 5.7
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.7-Range-restrictions-should-not-be-separate-URIs
and I don't see any new information w.r.t. the basis
on which we made that decision. Oh... that issue
should be cited in the reply.

So this WG member is happy for the chairs to say that
no, this doesn't need to go on the WG agenda and yes,
it's OK for the editor to make minor/editorial changes
to the spec and reply to the commentor.

But... hmm... the rationale for 5.7 could be made more clear
in the issues list first.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:49:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT