Fw: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough

Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough


> Hi:
>
> Perhaps you meant to send this message to public-owl-comments@w3.org as
> well?
>
> peter
>
>
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
> Subject: Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:20:23 -0700
>
>> Of course, I am not satisfied.
>> Why are you afraid to say that Class is a set?
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> http://mkrmke.org
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>> To: <rhm@pioneerca.com>
>> Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:32 AM
>> Subject: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough
>>
>>
>>> Dear Richard,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comment
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0020.html>
>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>
>>> The Working Group feels that your proposed changes will only serve to
>>> confuse readers of its documents and so deems them unsuitable for
>>> inclusion in its documents.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the Working Group will not be making any further changes to
>>> its documents in response to your comment.
>>>
>>> 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,
>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 16 May 2009 18:24:31 UTC