Re: proposed response to LC comment 55

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
Ian


On 10 Feb 2009, at 20:47, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> I am proposing the following response to LC Comment 55.
>
> In the absence of disagreement I suggest that the RDF mapping document
> be modified as suggested in the response, the modifications be  
> accepted
> as editorial, and the response sent out.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> [Response for LC Comment 55:]
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for your message
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0001.html
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> You are completely correct that there is no need for the RDF  
> Mapping to
> be concerned about the exact form of an input document.  The only  
> thing
> that matters is that an input document can be parsed into an RDF  
> graph.
> There has to be some concern with documents to handle imports,  
> however.
>
> The document has therefore been changed to read
>
>     An RDF Syntax ontology document is any document accessible from  
> some
>     given IRI that can be parsed into an RDF graph, ...
>
> The diffs can be found at ..................................
>
> The WG considers this to be an editorial change.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>
> Regards,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:29:21 UTC