- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:55:02 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:48, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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. [snip] Really? Er...I generally consider a necessary feature of documentation to be that it doesn't change any implementation. So, if changing the name is on the table, I'm much much less sympathetic. Since she concedes it's a judgement call, why are we pushing this further? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:55:39 UTC