W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review "Changes Since December" document

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:15:46 +0100
Message-Id: <788CACA6-D811-41B8-ACD1-722FE28DC8C1@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: ivan@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, team-owl-chairs@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On 12 Apr 2009, at 14:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


>> Another note on the list of LCC-s which is also publicized by  
>> reference:
>> I think we should either make it clear that answers that has been  
>> set as
>> chased are considered to be closed by default. At first glance one  
>> sees
>> a bunch of ACK_OK-s (with different colours:-) and the other cells  
>> which
>> contains the chase times. We should note them as, say, OK BY  
>> something like that, and document the chasing mail on a different
>> column.
> I am unclear as to what extra impact that would have.  The document
> currently is quite clear on the status of most of the LCCs.

I added "TIMEOUT" just to make it clear that we have done everything  
that we are going to do in these cases.

> What should
> be done instead, I think, is to chase the few non-responses that  
> haven't
> been chased, and then to further work on the non-positive responses,
> namely 21, 34, 45, and 66.

I agree that we should do this as well.

> I believe that 21 is now handled by the recent additions to OWL RL.
> Someone should write a response to Jos saying this.

Done. I don't see any reason to imagine that he won't be satisfied.

> 34 is complicated, but the only negative part of the response is about
> negative property assertions.

I changed this to TIMEOUT -- I believe that this is the most  
appropriate status to give to it.

> For 45 see below.
> I don't understand the situation with respect to 66.

I am trying to clarify. I hope that the added Conformance comment on  
datatypes in DL documents will satisfy the commenter(s).

>> I still saw one non-accepted entry there (45), what happened with  
>> that
>> one? I think we did tell Marko that this is should be a member
>> submission because is out of scope, I think that the table entry  
>> should
>> be slightly different, too.
> Well, this one is non-positive, and there was supposed to be a  
> concerted
> effort to contact the requestor and find out how to best handle his
> concerns.  As far as I can tell, all that has happened is that an  
> email
> was send to him.

Alan followed up with Marco but didn't get a reply. I therefore  
changed it to TIMEOUT.


>> Ivan
> peter
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 15:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC