- From: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:46:30 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Thanks for the quick response. The response is consistent with the answer with the mentioned issue raised before and the (unsatisfactory) work-arounds are similar to what we thought about. -Umberto Straccia On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Dear Umberto, > > Thank you for your comment > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Apr/0074.html > > > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > While we appreciate the use case raised in your comment, we found > that the specification and technical difficulties of adding such a > feature at this time outweigh the benefits it would bring. The > working group has, therefore, decided to make no change to OWL 2 in > response to your comment. > > Please note that a similar issue was raised in the first last call > round and there is a more detailed discussion in that reply: > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0063.html > > > > The work-arounds in that message are mostly relevant here as well. > > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org > > (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment > please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working > group's response to your comment. > > Regards, > Bijan Parsia > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49:06 UTC