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:
>> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>
>We have already agreed that it is a delta on the S&AS section 5, so it
>seems analagous to the problems related to editorial issues in the
>member submission docs.

I'm indifferent about the process.

However, I have just revised the Wiki page to more explicitly show the problem 
and the repair:

  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=FullSemanticsSequenceBased&oldid=6430>

This simulates the ACTION which I would have performed on an OWL 2 Full 
working draft, so you might think that this is sufficient to CLOSE this 
presumably EDITORIAL ISSUE as RESOLVED (with a note to the chairs). :-)

But /I/ won't do this... :)

Cheers,
Michael