On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 13:41, pat hayes wrote: > > You will follow up on this - reminder, you draft something and send > > to WG before replying to person - JH > > > OK, I'll do my best. The result is somewhat unconventional > but I hope it will serve. very nearly... > -------------------- > > Dear Jimmy > > Re. your comment > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0003.html > > which was archived in > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/open-issues?ml=public-webont-comments&range=1&realm=Public skip the 'which was archived'... > The working group has decided not to follow your suggestion, The WG hasn't actually decided anything. I hope we can dispose of this comment without putting a WG decision in the critical path. Where exactly is his suggestion? Oh... hm... I see... Let's respond this way instead: Before we get to your specific suggestion, I'd like to clarify what look like some misunderstandings of the present OWL (and RDF) design. [continue as you wrote... then close ala:] Is is sufficiently clear now how OWL and RDF are designed to work? Are you still interested in persuing your suggestion? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 15:01:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:41 GMT