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

Re: OVERVIEW: WG preference - action from telecon

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:59:23 -0600
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <1044302363.13421.62.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Umm... I haven't heard from Deb nor Frank;
did anybody actually tell them we'd like to
publish an update to WD-owl-features today?

Publication of semantics, guide, test, and requirements
are in progress, but I guess I propose to withdraw
my action to publish Overview (nee feature synopsis).

Somebody please *phone me* if that's not OK.

Note I get on a plane to SNA on Weds for a TAG ftf.

"2003-02-05 15:06 - 19:41 MCI->SNA Wednesday AMERICAN AIRLINES #1627"
  -- http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1b.txt
derived from http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1.rdf
also, in picture form: http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1.png

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:46, Jim Hendler wrote:
> Frank, Deb -
>   As neither of you were able to attend today's telecon, I took an 
> action to make a request of the two of you with respect to your 
> document.  Basically, it appears that the WG consensus was that the 
> feature (overview) document doesn't quite reflect the correct status 
> of the language with respect to intersectionOf, and that we would 
> prefer if it were fixed in the overview document, rather than 
> changing AS&S or other re-engineering of the language.
>   The consensus was that since it is easy to create certain kinds of 
> intersections in Owl Lite, should include owl:intersectionOf in the 
> Owl Lite vocabulary list in the Overview document.    The discussion 
> of this feature can look liek the discussion of the other features 
> that have restrictions in lite - i.e. the paragraph just says 
> smething like "can only be used with named classes" (oe however that 
> is made clear in the Overview).
>   If others on the WG who were on the call wish to explain this better 
> than I did, or to make specific wording changes, please let me know.
>   Note: this reflects a consensus that this document change is 
> desirable, not a reopening of an issue or a change in what is and 
> isn't in Lite (as it is now normatively defined in the AS&S document).

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 14:59:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC