Re: ISSUE 131 (OWL R Unification): Different semantics on syntactic fragment from Alan Ruttenberg on 2008-08-14 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from August 2008)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:31:30 -0400
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <2F320F98-899B-438F-B524-BA690571595E@gmail.com>

On Aug 14, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

>  1 - people will simply ignore the definition and claim  
> conformance, which is bad, or

This is my concern, currently. Or that conformance won't say enough  
to matter for the bulk of cases, which will fall outside the  
syntactic fragment.

-Alan

Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 22:32:13 UTC