- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:13:13 +0100
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: sandro@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 3 Sep 2008, at 21:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> > Subject: Re: revised (punchier) version of LC comment on XML Schema > Datatypes > Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:45:52 -0400 > >> >>> The revised draft letter is now available at >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DateTime >>> >>> After concurrence by the OWL team I will send this to the XML >>> Schema WG. >> >> Good. Two points: >> >> 1. I'd suggest dropping 1.4. It seems to be based on thinking that >> the 840 is hours instead of minutes. > > The issue is 14 hours vs 12 hours. I could either make that > explicit or > drop the (admittedly minor) point. I tweaked this (by appending "i.e., -720 to +840" to the offending sentence). Feel free to change/delete this part -- it is, as you say, of minor importance. IMHO, it is now ready to go -- please send it to the XML Schema WG. Thanks for your efforts on this. Ian > >> 2. "Otherwise the WG will not requiring minimal conformance that >> is" >> ^be ? > > And why didn't *you* make this editorial correction? :-) > >> -- Sandro > > peter >
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 16:13:57 UTC