- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:21:46 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > I *think* this is editorial. Aren't these just minor typos in which the appropriate constraints on quantifiers or bounds on some of the variables were missing? And isn't there one obviously correct answer, and a number of obviously incorrect answers? There are several such errors in S&AS but none which I feel merits WG attention. There is no obligation to preserve backward compatibility with clear errors. [There are no *obvious* errors in OWL Full, because nothing is obvious in such a complex system - but there are errors that are clear once they are articulated] Michael, do you disagree with such an assessment - i.e. do I need to seriously understand this problem? Jeremy
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 12:22:34 UTC