- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:23:22 +0100
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> The W3C OWL Working Group has considered your comment and has decided that this is a very good suggestion. Therefore, > the functional-style syntax will be changed to be fully typed, and this will be reflected in the next version of our documents. > Thanks again very much for raising this important issue! Full typed syntax is perhaps a "very" good idea for *implementors*, but seems a bad idea from the *user* side, as repetively said, see for example my email to the list [1], recalled at the F2F, and my earlier reply to this draft (cc to chairs). Unfortunately I did not get any feedback. Seems also from Michael emails [1] that he did not find it such a *very* good idea either, at least from his first reaction "to deny the requested change". The decision at the F2F to switch back to full typed syntax seems to have been taken in big rush, without new arguments except the info that "Matthew won't implement a parser in the OWL API for the untyped functional syntax". It is also unclear how this is related to existing implementations and tools. Until I get at least some lights why we should revise our previous decision to switch back to full-typed syntax, why full-typed syntax is prefered to mandatory declarations, I will not agree this response. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0212.html Christine 2009/2/24 Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>: > Hello, > > I've drafted a response to Matthew regarding the fully typed functional-style > syntax. Here is the draft: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MH1 > > Please let me know whether you are OK with this! > > Regards, > > Boris > > > -- Christine
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 14:24:06 UTC