- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:42:22 +0000
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Feb 2009, at 23:26, Christine Golbreich wrote: >> I never said it was. I said it was about WHY *this aspect* of the >> feature. The current text does not explain why this aspect of the >> feature (unlike the text added to the syntax). I provided text that >> explains why th,is aspect of the feature, but it was not >> incorporated in any way. > > Could you please summarize in one sentence what you would like to be > added ? Sure. I think it should describe the use case of representing multiple databases/tables or versions thereof as classes and thus the need to be able to scope keys to classes. See my earlier email where I explain this in more detail. [snip] > I may answer the rest of your email further point by point. But, > sometimes like now, I do not answer because I think it's wiser, > otherwise it would never end and also bother everybody. Be sure that > I never ignore comments. I always take all comments into > consideration when relevant and constructive. Uhm...but its not clear that you take my comments as relevant or constructive. Since you often don't respond and sometimes write as if I didn't make a comment (the email that started this thread is an example), I don't know whether you are just ignoring or actively dismissing my comments. To just take one example, I had an action in November to describe how I would like the Use cases to be presented: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/240 I discharged it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0023.html Now my proposal seems lost in the back versions. I've not wavered in what I prefer but we haven't settled this yet. I'm not saying that you have to agree, but it's clearly an issue, one raised in good faith, is relevant, and, I hope, constructive, even if wrong. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 23:43:03 UTC