Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247 from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2009-02-04 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from February 2009)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:02:01 -0500 (EST)
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090204.080201.196134379.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:57:54 +0000

[...]

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> *Note, this isn't a threat. I still think it should be rec track and I'm
> *mystified why it isn't. But I've not yet decided what to say about
> *that. But, clearly, your proposal has some issues. If we are going to
> *devote scarce WG time to fixing those issues then we should justify that
> *effort. So, I think the bar for a new, somewhat complex, feature should
> *be high.

If the WG is going to say something along the lines of:

   If you are going to exchange ontologies then *the* way you get
   intuitive labels for object is ....

then that seems to pass all the bars for REC track that I've ever heard.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 13:02:11 UTC