Re: The specification has been updated

Thank you!

Ivan

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 

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