- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:53:58 +0000
- To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 4 Feb 2009, at 18:34, Christine Golbreich wrote: > instead of > > "Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the > rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion > in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach > last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns" > I suggest : > > Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of > hasKey feature in the Syntax, a better explanation in the RDF-Based > Semantics, and more documentation in the NF&R. The rationale behind > this design is summarized in the NF&R. We will have also some > discussion in the primer Nothing has changed since: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1DE393A8-7809-4776-939E-4F05DAA73D9E@cs.manchester.ac.uk > with respect to this comment. So this revision is just inaccurate. I don't see how it's productive to simply repeat what has already been rebutted. Personally, I don't see what the pressure is to get the NF&R updated to cover this before replying to the comment. Nothing about Jim's experience rides on it. Why are we spending *any* further time on it? I suppose there's going to be some discussion off list, which is fine, I guess. But given the workload, I suggest that people try to be a bit more constructive. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:54:34 UTC