- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:47:00 -0700
- To: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Great idea. M. ============================================ Mike Uschold Tel: 425 865-3605 Fax: 425 865-2965 ============================================ > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Welty [mailto:welty@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:53 PM > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: [OEP] Using OWL abstract syntax in notes > > > > I am (finally) working on incorporating the review comments > in the next > version of the simple parts note, and am finding this > ridiculous triple > notation a real obstacle for understanding and writing the > OWL code. I'm > not sure why everyone has been using it in these notes - was > it just a > personal preference? > > The OWL abstract syntax was specifically designed to be easy > to read/type > for humans - I am going to switch the examples to that, at > least for this > note. > > -Chris > > Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group > IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY 10532 > Voice: +1 914.784.7055, IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455 > Email: welty@watson.ibm.com > Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/ > >
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2005 16:49:07 UTC