- From: Marijke Keet <keet@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:42:40 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Dear Ian, That it is only mentioned in the example and not cf. conceptual data modelling is not ideal, but better no change at all. At this late stage I will not push further and so I'm satisfied with the working group's response. Best regards, Marijke Ian Horrocks ha scritto: > Dear Marijke, > > Thank you for your comment > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0014.html> > > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > We changed the text in Section 9.5 of the OWL 2 Structural > Specification and Functional-Style Syntax [1] to talk about (lack of) > functionality and to include an example. > > Does this adequately address your concerns? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Keys > > 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, > Ian Horrocks > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group > >
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 13:43:21 UTC