- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:38:49 -0400 (EDT)
- To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Wait a minute here. I'm against normative text in NF&R. However, I don't think that any text explaining the differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2 should be normative. peter From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> Subject: Re: review of Document Overview Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:08:49 +0200 > 2009/4/2 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>: >> > >>> > 3.2: >>> > Just put this stuff elsewhere (perhaps in Primer). >>> >>> I significantly shortened the whole of Section 3 and pointed to NF&R >>> for detailed explanation/documentation. >>> >>> I also renamed it "Relationship to OWL 1" as this seems more >>> appropriate and avoids the negative connotations of "differences". >> >> Very nice, except that we need a link explaining the "almost"s in >> paragraph two to a place with text like Peter and I were crafting >> yesterday. If I were an OWL 2 user, I would insist the text actually be >> normative, too. (I guess there's no problem with a little normative >> text in NF&R.) > > Agree, as proposed, we'll put some like text in NF&R (as a whole or splitted) > >> -- Sandro >> >> > > > -- > Christine
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 08:37:00 UTC