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

Re: Proposed (parital) response to Ken Laskey and questions for WG

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200307171729.NAA02530@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jim Hendler wrote:

>At 10:15 AM -0400 7/16/03, Jeff Heflin wrote:
>>Before I send the message I'd like to see if the WG has a preference on
>>whether or not we need to include some discussion of how OWL meets our
>>requirements somewhere in our document set. This was a theme that ran
>>throughout Ken's post.
>I sort of like this idea - What about if we had an appendix to the 
>reqs document that directed people to the appropriate document parts 
>-- that way it wouldn't require a lot of new text?  Could be a table 
>like  (these are random - not tracking the real things):
>O1	"Realized via mapping to RDF"		http://sas/
>O2	"Issue raised, but postponed"		http://issues...
>R1	"Realized via mapping to RDF"		http://ref/...
>R2	"see owl:sameAs"			http://guide/...

Ken Lasky's email shows that something like this would be helpful.
Jim's suggested approach is concise and does the job.  It does look
like fair amount of work to put together, though.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 13:29:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC