- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:48:57 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:28, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > [snip] >> >> I completely agree about the need to let these be represented. The >> question that Marijke raises isn't about that but about how we >> document the feature. > > I didn't derive that from her email. I think Jim is right that we'll need > more documentation, but I thought her point was the change the name (or make > the feature functional). Neither of those seem ideal. Changing the name would be what I consider along the lines of documentation. Not that I'm passing judgement on the merit of doing so. Just noting that I don't see a call for removing the ability to do what you describe. While she did suggest making hasKey functional I considered that an attempt to have the name align with what her view of the semantics are, not as a statement that the functionality you suggest isn't desirable. In any case, I'll follow up and get back with what I find. -Alan > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:49:34 UTC