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

Re: proposed reploy for ``OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics review comments''

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:55:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200305301655.h4UGtoiC008881@tux.w3.org>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

amp;In-Reply-To=&lt;20030509.161403.35615391.pfps@research.bell-labs.com&gt;&amp;References=&lt;20030509.161403.35615391.pfps@research.bell-labs.com&gt;Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/)
Message-Id: <1054313775.21361.279.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 
Date: 30 May 2003 11:56:15 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK, yes, peter, please send this.

To elaborate, in case my mailer isn't giving enough
threading clues...

In response to this comment...

OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics review comments
Jan Grant (Fri, May 09 2003)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0050.html

Peter proposed this reply...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0112.html

And Jim OK'd it, with one minor correction.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0128.html

I read 0112 and I concur; it's responsive to the comment
and consistent with the WG proceedings; i.e. it doesn't
involve any changes that merit a WG decision.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 12:55:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT