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

Re: Proposed response to: rdf:about and owl:sameIndividualAs oddities

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 May 2003 14:01:27 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1054321287.21362.357.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

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 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT