RE: The specification has been updated

Hello,

I've made the two comments exactly the same.

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: 24 November 2008 09:11
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'OWL 2'
> Subject: Re: The specification has been updated
> 
> Boris,
> 
> one comment on the 'at risk feature' for XMLLiteral. Forgive me if I
> comment on something for which I was not present at the discussion, I
> just went through the IRC minutes. But the comment says:
> 
> 'This datatype might be removed from OWL 2 if the users and implementors
> of OWL 2 do not express support to the datatype.'
> 
> the way I read this is that the intention is to remove this datatype
> unless somebody explicitly comes up and asks for it. This is in quite a
> contrast with, say, the comment for rationals which simply says that if
> there are major implementation issues then (and only then) would we
> remove this datatype. Is this really the result of the discussion?
> 
> I would propose to change this comment to essentially the same as for
> rationals, ie, that if there are major implementation issues with
> XMLLiteral, we would remove it (and, actually, the remark may also make
> it clear that, as far as I understand, OWL 2 Full _will_ have this
> datatype anyways, per remark of Michael, so we are talking about
> removing it from OWL DL only...)
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've just updated the five documents that I'm an editor of with the latest resolutions. Again,
> there were quite a few changes,
> > mainly because I fixed some clarity issues that Ian was complaining about, so I'm not providing
> diffs.
> >
> > I've added a template for "at risk" features. We currently have four such features in the Syntax
> document, all in Section 4
> > (datatypes). Since the definition of datatypes in the Profiles document depends on the Syntax
> document, I added one "at risk" block
> > for all four features. If would be good if someone would check whether my wording is correct (I
> imagine that it can be improved).
> >
> > I've also updated the references with the changes in editorship as decided recently.
> >
> > All of my five documents validated correctly, apart from the RDF Mapping document, where there is
> some spurious error in the
> > generation of the table of contents. I'm afraid we'll need to fix this one manually before
> publication.
> >
> > None of the five documents contains broken links.
> >
> > Please let me know should you have any comments about the documents.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 09:20:07 UTC