- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:57:53 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 24 Oct 2007, at 15:57, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > [snip] >> [[ >> B) People expressed the desire for more group review before >> publishing anything. The consequential benefits haven't been clearly >> enumerated to my ken. >> ]] >> >> Jim argued this most effectively - this is the normal W3C WG process, >> and there is nothing so strange about this WG that we should behave >> differently. > > That's not a consequential benefit. It would be helpful if you were a > little more careful in your reading. I don't think I could get away with arguing that conventionality is beneficial :) > >> As an example to do with the semantics doc. HP has a view that the >> n-ary datatypes design (which I guess is in that doc) is broken. We >> have stated this on a number of occassions. Currently that does not >> seem to be in an issue list, > > A simple query of the issue list reveals: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=12 > > This is a very minimal piece of research. I.e., go to the owl wg home page: > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group > > Under "inputs" click "Issues" then "issues list" to get to: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/list > > Then search for "n-ary". > > It would also be helpful if you were a little less bold with > unresearched claims. Esp. ones that suggest that people have been > unresponsive to issues that you've raised. Sorry - I had looked at the google code issues list, but clearly had difficulties with the mechanisms - I can't recollect what - it seems clear enough now - I think I was searching for "Turner" ... Jeremy
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 13:58:58 UTC