- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:15:46 +0100
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ivan@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, team-owl-chairs@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 12 Apr 2009, at 14:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] >> 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 >> TIMEOUT or >> 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. Ian > >> Ivan > > peter >
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 15:16:26 UTC