RE: ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Michael Schneider wrote:
>
>> /I/ agree. But let's see what others think. My idea of processing this
>issue
>> was:
>>
>>   1) Raise the issue yesterday.
>>   2) Open the issue on Wednesday.
>>   3) Tell in next week's agenda that this issue is planned to be
>closed.
>>
>> This would suffice to get most people be aware of it. But if you think
>this is
>> exaggerated, then we might not even open it on Wednesday...
>>
>
>We have a lightweight process for editorial issues, and I am tentatively
>advocating that this should be used for this issue.
>
>Jeremy

Ah, but I believe that this isn't applicable in this case, since there doesn't 
exist an OWL 2 Full document at the moment.

Cheers,
Michael

Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 13:56:40 UTC