- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:23:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
- Cc: bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
There was some discussion on removing two of the use cases from NF&R in response to a LC comment. The rationale would have been that the use cases did not support any OWL 2 features (and thus would not have satisfied the requirements in the abstract for NF&R). However, it was determined that they did support the hooks for n-ary datatypes (at least) and thus that there was reason to keep these two use cases. peter From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> Subject: Throw it away! Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:48 +0100 > 1) I'm looking at the log on IRC and see that there has been some > discussions about the NF&R. > Has the schedule for discusssion about non LC documents been modified > ? Are you in advance ? late ? > > 2) I see Bijan's comment "Throw it away!" > and later : "The use cases right? I'm strongly against them" > after Alan's:"The document is called "New Features and Rationale" > > Since I was not on the phone, and it's clear from the record on IRC, > could you please elicit what you were talking about and what "it" > refers to "in through it away"? > work on N-ary? NF&R ? the comment ? > > 3) I don't know if this discussion was related to N-ary or not. > Concerning N-ary and related UCs, FYI I asked aothors of the technical > spec whether I should leave it or not in the NF&R and was replied that > I should leave it. > " I guess that n-ary will indeed happen as a note, so there is > probably no need to EdNotes in your document". > > > -- > Christine >
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 18:24:04 UTC